The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's appeal to correct it is unlawful.

The “reasons for which a party is not liable” as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period despite the party’s due care to conduct the procedural acts. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of the lawsuit and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of public notice. In a case where the documents of lawsuit are served by public notice during the process of the lawsuit, the first copy of the complaint is served through service by public notice, and the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012). As to the instant case, the Defendant was served with a duplicate of the instant complaint in Gangseo-gu Seoul, the Defendant’s domicile on August 21, 2016, and then served with a notice on the date for pleading and the notice on the date for pronouncement of a judgment was not served as a closed door absence. The original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served by means of service and served at the time of February 80, 2017 as it was not served as a closed door absence. The fact that the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the first instance court on November 1, 2019 where the period for appeal of the second week was far more than the period for filing an appeal of the second week, can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the entries in the evidence No. 1 and the entire purport of the pleadings, or is clearly and clearly on the record.

In light of the above facts, since the defendant was legally served with a duplicate of the complaint of this case, he did not investigate the progress of the lawsuit even though he was obligated to investigate it. Thus, it does not constitute a case where the defendant could not observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant.