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 182 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “a service on a person arrested, detained, or detained in a prison, detention house, or a national police station’s detention room shall be effected by the head of a prison, detention house, or a national police station.” Here, “the warden of a prison, etc.” is a kind of legal representative in the service of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6009 delivered on March 11, 2003, etc.) In relation to supplementary service, Article 186(1) of the same Act provides, “If a person to receive service other than his/her work place is not present at the place of service, documents may be delivered to his/her office worker, employee, or person living together with the mental capability to make reasonable judgment,” while Article 186(2) of the same Act provides, “if a person to receive service is not present at the work place, documents may be delivered to him/her unless he/she refuses the receipt of documents by his/her employee, or his/her legal representative or employee.”

Meanwhile, Article 173(1) of the same Act provides, “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” Here, “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the grounds for not being able to observe the period, even though the party performed his/her duty of care generally to conduct litigation.

B. 1 ex officio, the following facts are clear in the records of this case, or are significant in this court.

① On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On April 12, 2016, the court of first instance held that the Defendant’s delivery place recorded in the written complaint was a holiday.