beta
Text
1. The appeal of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. On July 20, 2015, the judgment of the first instance court on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal was rendered on July 20, 2015, and the original copy of the judgment was served by means of service by public notice to the Defendant on August 27, 2015, and the Defendant filed the instant subsequent appeal on September 22, 2015 when the period for appeal expires. We examine the legality of the subsequent appeal.
A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party is not liable” refers to the reason why the party is unable to comply with the period even though he/she fulfilled the general obligation to act in the course of the litigation, and where the service of documents in the course of the lawsuit is impossible and the service of documents in the process of service by public notice is inevitable as a result of the impossibility of being served by public notice, it shall be different from that of the lawsuit by public notice from that of the first place, and where the party is not aware of the progress of the lawsuit at the court, it shall not be deemed that there is no negligence if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit at the court. In addition, such obligation shall be borne, regardless of whether the party was present and present at the date for pleading, whether the party
(B) Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu224 delivered on March 10, 1987 and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082 delivered on July 22, 2004
However, the following facts are clear in records:
1) On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant with the Seoul Southern District Court. A duplicate of the instant complaint was served to Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court as the Defendant’s domicile, and D, the representative director of the Defendant, was received. 2) After that, the notice of the date for pleading was served to the Defendant’s domicile, but it was impossible to serve the notice as the Defendant’s domicile as the Defendant’s absence of closure documents on July 1, 2015, July 1, 2015, and on July 2, 3, 2015. Accordingly, the first instance court was served on July 10, 2015.