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 means of 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 not being held responsible to the party, unless the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to observe the peremptory period.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98423 Decided April 25, 2013, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98423, Apr. 25,

The following facts are clear in records:

1) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 9, 2014, and the court of first instance served by mail the copy of the instant complaint on the Defendant’s address, “Ssung E, 606 Dong 1301, the Defendant directly received it on July 17, 2014, and submitted a written answer stating the Defendant’s address as indicated in the instant written complaint on August 19, 2014. The instant case was submitted to the conciliation on August 22, 2014, and the Defendant did not report the change of his address or place of delivery in the process of the first instance trial proceeding. (2) The instant case was submitted to the conciliation on August 22, 2014. The Defendant was unable to receive a certified copy of the instant conciliation return, but the Defendant was present on the date of open conciliation, which was concluded on October 16, 2014, and the instant case was returned to the litigation procedure again.

3. On November 11, 2014, the court of first instance has determined the date for pleading as of November 11, 2014, and served the notice to the address above the defendant's domicile, but it is impossible to serve the notice due to the absence of a closed door.