1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on September 12, 2016 as deeming the withdrawal of the Defendant’s appeal.

2. After filing an application for designation of the date.

1. The following facts of recognition are remarkable or obvious in records in this court:

The Defendant served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court rendered on November 17, 2015, on November 20, 2015, and filed an appeal on November 27, 2015.

B. On April 28, 2016, the Defendant appeared on the date for the first pleading, and was notified of the date for the second pleading, but was absent on June 9, 2016.

C. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant was absent on the third date for pleading on July 18, 2016, and on the third date for pleading on July 18, 2016, each of which was served with a notice of change of the date for pleading on August 11, 2016.

The Plaintiff’s attorney was present at each of the above dates for pleading, but did not present.

E. The Defendant applied for designation of date only on October 11, 2016, which was one month after the third date for pleading.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant lawsuit was concluded on September 12, 2016, where one month has elapsed from the third date for pleading in the trial pursuant to Articles 286, 268(4) and 268(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Defendant’s application for the designation of date on October 11, 2016 was filed two occasions after the lapse of one month from both of them. Thus, the instant lawsuit was invalid.

In regard to this, the defendant's family members were in the line of duty due to the amstroke, amstroke, etc., and in particular, on August 11, 2016, the date of the third pleading, the defendant's hospitalization of children, and thus, the defendant was absent on each of the above date of pleading, and thus, the period of application for designation of the date of pleading was not complied with. However, since the defendant was notified of the second date of pleading on April 28, 2016, and the second date of pleading on July 18, 2016, and the notification of the change date of the third date of pleading on July 18, 2016, it cannot be viewed differently even if there are circumstances alleged by the defendant, and therefore, the above period stipulated in Article 268 of the Civil Procedure Act is not a peremptory period, and thus, the subsequent completion of the application for designation of the date of pleading is not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 92Ma175,