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. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

(a) The following facts are significant or obvious in fact to this court:

1) In filing the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, the Plaintiff served a duplicate of the complaint to Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu Seoul Northern-gu C, which was the Defendant’s address discovered through an application for fact-finding with the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office, but it was impossible to serve the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff revised the Defendant’s resident registration address to Eunpyeong-gu Seoul-gu “Seoul-gu D,” which was the Defendant’s resident registration address, and the Defendant received the complaint on February 20, 2012. 2) The first instance court designated the Defendant on May 3, 2012 as the sentencing date and served the notice of the sentencing date to the said corrected address but became impossible to serve due to the absence of a written notification, and served on April 23, 2012 thereafter.

3) On May 3, 2012, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (a non-litigation). When the original copy of the judgment also became impossible to be served due to the absence of documents in the same address, the original copy of the judgment was served to the Defendant by means of service by public notice on May 30, 2012, and the service of the original copy became effective on June 14, 2012. (iv) The Defendant submitted the petition of appeal for subsequent completion on February 5, 2016.

B. The Defendant alleged that the first instance judgment was served by service by public notice, and that the Defendant knew on February 1, 2016 that the instant judgment was served by service by public notice, and that the instant subsequent appeal filed within two weeks thereafter was lawful.

C. Subsequent completion of the judgment procedural acts is to enable the parties to supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date when such cause has ceased to exist, in a case where the parties were unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to “a cause not attributable to the parties”.