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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

(a) The following facts are apparent in the records:

1) On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant as Seoul Western District Court 2018Gaso54975, Seoul Western District Court 2018. 2) The first instance court served a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant’s domicile as “Incheon-dong C and D, the Defendant’s domicile as indicated in the instant complaint, and on September 27, 2018, E, the Defendant’s spouse, received it.

3) On October 30, 2018, the court of first instance served a notice of the date of pleading as of November 22, 2018 with the Defendant’s domicile above, and received it by E on November 5, 2018. The Defendant did not submit a written response, and on November 22, 2018, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment upon the closure of pleadings on November 22, 2018, and rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff in whole with the Defendant’s domicile. On November 29, 2018, E received the original judgment of the first instance court.

5) On December 19, 2018, the appeal period of which expires, the Defendant filed a written appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal of this case. (B) The “reasons for which the parties are not liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the grounds for failing to comply with the period despite the parties’ due diligence to perform the procedural acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da211886, Oct. 30, 2014). According to the foregoing facts, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal of this case even if the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served, and the Defendant asserted for reasons for which the Defendant cannot be held responsible, on the grounds that the “Fifth difficulty of childcare, such as the failure of the parties to the appeal cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act does not constitute “reasons for which the parties cannot be held liable,” and thus, the appeal period failed to meet the requirements for the procedural acts of this case after the appeal period expires.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is unlawful.