1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim, appeal, and the purport of appeal.

1. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the records of this case and the overall purport of the pleading:

1) On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. 2) On June 16, 2017, the first instance court served a duplicate of the complaint and a written guidance for lawsuit, etc. on the Defendant’s domicile as at the time of the Defendant’s domicile. On June 22, 2017, the Defendant directly served a duplicate of the complaint, etc., and submitted a written response to the first instance court on July 6, 2017.

3) After that, the first instance court, which submitted by the Plaintiff on July 21, 2017, served a preparatory document and a notice of the date of pleading on the date of pleading to the Defendant’s domicile, and dealt with the service of documents to the Defendant, who would not be served on the Defendant as the addressee’s address. 4) On August 10, 2017, the first instance court concluded the pleadings in the absence of the Defendant on August 10, 2017, while the Defendant was absent. On three occasions, the notice of the sentencing date was served on the Defendant’s domicile, but all the notice was served on the Defendant’s domicile but is not served as a closed door

5) On August 24, 2017, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting a part of the Plaintiff’s claim. On three occasions, the original of the judgment was served on the Defendant’s domicile, but all were not served on the Defendant’s domicile, and served on September 14, 2017 by public notice. On September 29, 2017, the service of the original judgment against the Defendant became effective. 6) On October 30, 2017, the Defendant perused the original judgment of the first instance, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on October 31, 2017.

B. Where a party to the relevant legal doctrine was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.

(Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, “reasons for which a party is not liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act means litigation by the party.