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. 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 despite the party’s exercise of general duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by public notice, the first delivery of the copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. 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 due

Furthermore, the circumstances that there was no negligence in failing to observe the appeal period due to the lack of knowledge of the declaration and service of the judgment should be asserted and proved by the parties who intend to supplement the appeal later.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). B.

The court of first instance sent a duplicate of the instant complaint to the Defendant’s domicile on June 19, 2015, and received it by the Defendant on June 19, 2015, the court of first instance sent a notice of date for pleading to the Defendant’s domicile on August 19, 2015, and received it on August 19, 2015, the court of first instance issued a notice of date for pleading to the Defendant’s child D, and the court of first instance sent the notice of date for pronouncement to the Defendant’s domicile on November 26, 2015, and served the Defendant by means of delivery on November 26, 2015. The original copy of the judgment of the first instance court was sent by public notice to the Defendant on January 8, 2016, and the fact that the Defendant submitted the instant appeal to this court on July 18, 2016, which is far more than two weeks thereafter, is clear or obvious.

According to the above facts of recognition, a duplicate of the complaint of this case, etc.