1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On November 18, 2013, the court of the first instance served the copy of the complaint and the written guidance for the lawsuit as Ulsan-gu D, the Defendant’s address, and received it as the Defendant’s spouse, E, the Defendant’s spouse.

B. After that, the first instance court served a notice of the date of pleading and the date of pronouncement to the Defendant’s address, but was not served as a closed door, and on April 16, 2014, sent the notice of the date of pronouncement to the Defendant’s address.

C. On April 22, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim. On May 9, 2014, the court served the Defendant’s address and served the original copy of the judgment at the Defendant’s address, but also did not serve the original copy due to the absence of closure.

On May 24, 2014, the original copy of the judgment at issue entered into force, and the defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on April 14, 2015, where the period for appeal has expired.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, obvious facts in records, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main point of the defendant's assertion was not delivered to the defendant even after receiving a duplicate of the complaint of this case and a guide of the lawsuit, and the defendant could not know at all the facts of the lawsuit of this case and the progress of the lawsuit without any negligence.

The defendant became aware of the fact that he was sentenced to a judgment on April 5, 2015, and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion within 14 days from the above date. Thus, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is lawful.

B. In a case where a party to the legal doctrine was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.

(Article 173(1) main text of the Civil Procedure Act). The term “reasons for which a party is not liable” as referred to in this context refers to the party’s procedural acts.