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. The facts of recognition: ① the court of first instance intended to serve a duplicate of the complaint on the Defendant, but failed to be served on the Defendant due to the absence of a written complaint or an addressee’s unknown whereabouts; accordingly, the order of service by public notice was served on the Defendant; ② the notice of the date for first pleading was served on the Defendant on the date for first pleading on August 17, 2017; ② the Defendant filed an application for resumption of pleading with the court on September 1, 2017; ③ the first instance court resumed the pleading; ③ the first instance court served the Defendant by registered mail when the notice of the date for second pleading was served on the date for second pleading; ④ the pleading was concluded on September 14, 2017, and the first instance court was pronounced on October 12, 2017 (the Defendant was absent on the date for second pleading and on the date for second pleading) and the original copy was not served on the Defendant on the date for first pleading, and the court ordered the Defendant to serve the original copy on the Defendant pursuant to the order of service by public notice.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason why the party could not comply with the period even though he/she fulfilled the generally required obligation to perform the procedural acts. As such, where the service of documents in the process of a lawsuit was impossible and the service of documents in the process of service by public notice was inevitable as a result, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, as it is different from that of service by public notice. Thus, if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence, and such obligation is present at the date of pleading, and whether the party appeared and testified.