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 as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

A. The following facts are apparent in records:

1) On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the Seo-gu District Court Branch. 2) On October 4, 2016, the Seo-gu District Court rendered a decision of performance recommendation regarding the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant received a certified copy of the said decision of performance recommendation and a written guidance for litigation on November 14, 2016.

3) On November 17, 2016, the Defendant submitted a written objection to the said decision on performance recommendation to the Seo-gu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court. (4) The Defendant received the notice of the first date for pleading of the instant lawsuit on March 30, 2017.

5) On April 25, 2017, the first instance court concluded pleadings on the date of first pleading, and on May 17, 2017, sent a notice of the sentencing date to the Defendant on May 22, 2017, but in the absence of the text of closure, sent the notice of the sentencing date to the Defendant on May 22, 2017. (6) The first instance court sentenced the first instance judgment on May 23, 2017, and sent the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant, but in the absence of closure, sent the original copy by public notice on June 26, 2017, and became effective on July 11, 2017.

7 The defendant submitted a written appeal to the first instance court on August 23, 2017, which was after the delivery of the original copy of the judgment became effective and the appeal period of two weeks of appeal has elapsed.

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 comply with the period despite the party's exercise of generally required care for conducting the litigation. In a case where the service of documents in the process of the lawsuit was impossible and the service of documents in the process of the lawsuit was inevitably made by service by public notice as a result, it is different from that of service by public notice from the beginning and the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there was no negligence.