When the document of lawsuit, such as a copy of the complaint, is served by public notice due to the impossibility of being served at the domicile due to the failure to file a report on transfer, whether there is a cause attributable to the

Where a copy of the complaint and other litigation documents are served by public notice and the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice, if the defendant becomes aware of such fact after being served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal shall be caused by a cause not attributable to the defendant. In such cases, the defendant, who did not report a transfer, was at fault with regard to the appeal period after service by public notice, on the ground that service by public notice was made on the resident registration address.

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu5 delivered on September 13, 198 (Gong1988, 1277) (Gong1991, 958) 90Da20480 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1748)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 92Reu13 delivered on February 12, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In a case where a copy of the complaint and other litigation documents are served to the defendant by means of service by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment is also served to the defendant by public notice, if the defendant becomes aware of such facts thereafter, barring any special circumstance, the failure of the defendant to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal shall be due to a cause not attributable to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu8, Sept. 22, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu5, Sept. 13, 1988; etc.). In such a case, on the ground that service by public notice was impossible in the address on resident registration, service by public notice was made to the defendant who did not report such transfer to the defendant, there is a negligence as to the period of appeal after public notice

In addition, it is problematic whether there was a cause attributable to the defendant for failure to observe the peremptory period in relation to the legitimacy of appeal for subsequent completion, and it is not a matter of whether there was negligence due to failure of the defendant to know the address of the plaintiff who applied for service by public notice.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that deemed the appeal period of this case to be due to a cause for which the defendant cannot be held liable is just, and there is no reason to criticize the judgment of the court below in its independent opinion.

On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the decision of the court below is justified in the light of the records, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle, which points out in the process of the lawsuit, and there is no error of law, such as the violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle.

Even if the marriage has broken down, the other spouse is not entitled to a divorce claim against the spouse entirely or mainly responsible for the dissolution of the marriage, except where the divorce is not complied with only on the surface in writing or retaliation sentiment without the intention to continue the marriage, and in light of the facts and records acknowledged by the court below, it is difficult to view that the defendant in this case is not entitled to a divorce in writing or retaliation sentiment without the intention to continue the marriage. Accordingly, the argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)