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. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case
A. On November 7, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a service of a duplicate of the complaint against the defendant as "Gyeong-si," which is the former domicile of the defendant on the defendant's resident registration, and received it by the defendant's mother-friendly E, the notification of the sentencing date was served on the defendant's mother-child E on April 6, 2018, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on April 24, 2018, and the original judgment was served on the defendant on May 29, 2018 by means of service by public notice, and the defendant filed the appeal of this case on June 19, 2018 and on June 25, 2018.
B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason for failure to comply with the period, even though the party fulfilled generally required care for conducting the said procedural acts. In a case where documents of lawsuit are unable to be served by means of service by public notice as a usual way during the course of the lawsuit, the delivery of a copy of the complaint was made by public notice, and thus, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is attributable to any reason for not being held responsible
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082 delivered on July 22, 2004, etc.). According to Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a document may be served by delivering documents to a person living together with the mental capacity to make a reasonable judgment, if the person to be served was not present at a place other than a work place. Here, “place to be served” is not necessarily confined to the domicile of the person to be served, and “a person living together” also is served.