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. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
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 service during the process of litigation, which is different from the case where the documents of lawsuit were served by public notice from the delivery of a 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
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). B.
According to the records of this case, on November 3, 2014, the defendant was served with the notice of a copy of the complaint of this case and the date for pleading at Busan Prison, which is the place for service, and thereafter submitted a written response and filed a lawsuit at the date for pleading at the first day for pleading, etc. The court of first instance sent a correction recommendation ordering the defendant to report to the court the address and telephone number at which contact can be contacted after the release of the defendant, if the address reported by the defendant (Seoul High-gun B) differs from the place for delivery. On December 15, 2014, the defendant was served with the notice of correction recommendation and the date for pleading at the Busan Detention House, which is the place for service, at the Busan Detention House, which is the place for delivery, and the court of first instance, which accepted the plaintiff's request on February 4, 2015, was unable to serve the original copy of the judgment at the address reported by the defendant as a method of service by publication, and the original copy of the judgment reached the defendant on March 13, 2017.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant of this case.