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 a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice, and was not aware of the declaration of the judgment of the first instance court on May 1, 2016. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion was lawful, as the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on May 25, 2016, prior to the lapse of two weeks.

B. The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.”

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party is not liable” refers to a reason why the party could not observe the period even though he/she had exercised a general duty to act in the course of litigation. In cases where the document of lawsuit cannot be served by public notice as a matter of ordinary way during the course of litigation, and was served by public notice, the document of lawsuit cannot be served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and thereby fails to observe the peremptory period, it cannot be deemed that the party is not responsible for the reason for not being responsible. Further, such obligation is borne, regardless of whether the party was present and present at the date of pleading, whether the party was notified of the date of pleading after the date of pleading present at the date

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844 Decided March 10, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012). According to records, the original copy of the judgment of the first instance is recognized as being served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice on November 7, 2007.