beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Judgment on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal
A. As long as the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court was served on the defendant by means of service by public notice, the requirements are incomplete.
Even if the service is valid, the judgment of the first instance court is formally finalized due to the limit of the appeal period, and the legitimacy of the defendant's subsequent appeal is determined separately by the defendant's failure to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.
(1) The term “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the grounds for not complying with the period despite the party’s due care to perform the procedural acts. In a case where the service of documents relating to a lawsuit is impossible as a result of the impossibility of being served by public notice as a result of the failure of being served by public notice, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning. Thus, if the parties were not aware of the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there was no negligence. This obligation is to be borne, regardless of whether the parties were present and present at the date for pleading, whether the parties were notified of the date for pleading following the date for pleading, or whether the attorney was appointed.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844 Decided March 10, 2006, etc.). B.
Facts of recognition
The following facts are apparent in the records or obvious to this court:
(1) In filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff stated the Defendant’s address as “Incheon Gyeyang-gu (D)” in the complaint, and the Defendant directly received the decision of performance recommendation accompanied by the duplicate of the instant complaint from the said industrial company on October 29, 2014.
(2) The Defendant made a decision on performance recommendation to the Incheon District Court on November 3, 2014.