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. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." Here, the term "reasons for which the party cannot be held liable" refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of due care to conduct procedural acts, even though he/she

If a copy of the complaint, original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).

In full view of the records of this case as to whether the appeal for the completion of the appeal of this case is lawful and the facts revealed to this court, the court of first instance was served with a copy of the complaint on the defendant's resident registration address, but was not served due to the absence of documents, and the court of first instance did not serve with the same address upon the plaintiff's request, but did not serve with the absence of documents, and the court of first instance.