beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. On July 24, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the appeal period due to a traffic accident. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s appeal is unlawful, and that the Defendant’s instant safety defense is unlawful.
B. The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.”
The phrase “reasons for which a party cannot be held responsible” refers to the grounds why the party cannot observe the period despite the party’s due care to conduct such procedural acts. In the event a document of lawsuit cannot be served in a usual way while the lawsuit was in progress and served by public notice, if the document of lawsuit was served by public notice, then it would be different from the case where the document of lawsuit was served by public notice from the service of the original 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 abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is responsible for any cause not attributable to the party, and the circumstance that the party was not negligent in failing to observe the period due to the failure to know
(1) According to the records, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on December 18, 2015, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment on July 11, 2016, on which the original copy of the said judgment was served to the Plaintiff on October 30, 2014, and on October 11, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012; 2012Da98423, Apr. 25, 2013).