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. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though the party fulfilled generally required care for conducting litigation. In a case where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the first delivery of the copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. As such, 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 due to any reason for which it cannot be held responsible.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). B.
Facts of recognition
The following facts may be acknowledged in accordance with the fact-finding results and the purport of the whole pleadings against the execution officer of Sung-nam branch of the party branch court in Sung-nam branch.
1) On April 20, 2006, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court (A and C). On August 8, 2006, the Defendant received a duplicate of the complaint and a written guidance of lawsuit through his wife N in the underground 2 of the “Songnam-si Party M” recorded as the Defendant’s domicile at the Defendant’s address. (ii) The court of first instance served a written application for change of the purport and cause to the above address, and a written notice of the sentencing date (a non-statement) but was unable to be served due to the addressee’s absence or closure, the delivery by registered mail was carried out.
3) On May 17, 2007, the court of first instance sentenced the judgment and served the original copy to the defendant's domicile, but returned due to the addressee's absence or absence of closure, and served the original copy of the judgment by means of service by public notice on June 12, 2007 (the defendant at the time of June 27, 2007).