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. The following facts are apparent in records:

On August 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a loan with this Court No. 2017Gaso5025, stating the Defendant’s address as “Seojin-gu Busan Metropolitan City C building and 1103.”

On August 8, 2017, the court of the first instance rendered a decision of performance recommendation to the defendant on August 8, 2017, and on August 16, 2017, the defendant's child D, a person living together with the defendant, received a certified copy of the decision of performance recommendation and a litigation guide, and the defendant submitted a written objection for the decision of performance recommendation on August 17, 2017.

B. On October 19, 2017, the court of first instance served a notice of the date of pleading on the Defendant’s domicile, and the Defendant received the notice of the date of pleading on October 24, 2017.

C. On November 21, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 12, 2017, after closing the pleadings in the state where both the Plaintiff and the Defendant present at the meeting, on the first date for pleading (10:00 on November 21, 2017).

Although the court of the first instance served the original copy of the judgment on December 18, 2017 as the defendant's domicile, it did not serve the original copy as the defendant's domicile on December 21, 2017; on December 22, 2017; on December 26, 2017; on January 2, 2018, the original copy of the judgment was again served as the defendant's domicile; on January 4, 2018; on January 5, 2018; and on January 8, 2018, it did not serve the original copy as the defendant's domicile.

On January 17, 2018, the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment by public notice, and on February 1, 2018, the service became effective.

On March 12, 2018, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal to the court of first instance, which had 14 days passed thereafter.

2. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was at the time of service of the original judgment, and thus, it could not be served. Accordingly, the original judgment was served by public notice, and the Defendant did not know the fact that the judgment was pronounced.

The appeal of this case is lawful because it is obvious that the defendant's appeal period has lapsed is a cause not attributable to the defendant.