beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Whether the appeal is lawful after subsequent completion;
A. On August 30, 2005, when the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was sent by the Defendant’s assertion, it was not possible to accept the fact that the merchant president of the commercial building as indicated in the attached list had been posted, and the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was served by means of service by public notice, and it was not known that the judgment of the court of first instance was served to the Defendant by means of service by public notice only after July 7, 2014. Thus, the subsequent appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.
B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though the party fulfilled his/her general duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. Thus, where the service of documents related to a lawsuit was impossible as a result of the failure to serve the documents in the process of the lawsuit by public notice, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, even if 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. Such duty of investigation shall be borne, regardless of whether the party was present and present at the date of pleading, whether the party appointed
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844 Decided March 10, 2006, etc.). The duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant on May 24, 2005 in the Health Center and the first instance court. The original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served on the Defendant by public notice on September 2, 2005. The fact that the Defendant filed an appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion of the case on April 17, 2014, which was two weeks after the expiration of the pertinent share price, is apparent in the record.
In addition, on August 30, 2005, when the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was sent, the defendant has already left the position of the merchant of the commercial building as shown in the attached list.