The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent or obvious to this Court in the records:

1) The first instance court served a duplicate, etc. of the instant complaint as the Defendant’s domicile, and the Defendant received the said document on January 7, 2020.

2) As above, the Defendant did not submit any documents such as the written reply even after being served with the duplicate, etc. of the complaint. The first instance court served the Defendant a notice of the date of the pronouncement of the judgment (non-litigation) but it was impossible for the Defendant to serve the notice due to the addressee’s unknown address, and served the notice by means of delivery as of February 26, 2020.

3) On March 4, 2020, the first instance court sentenced the judgment to the Defendant on March 4, 2020. However, as the Defendant attempted to serve the original text of the judgment but became unable to serve due to the addressee’s uncertainty, the first instance court rendered a disposition of public notice on March 13, 2020, and served the Defendant by means of public notice on March 28, 2020.

4) On May 4, 2020, the Defendant submitted the instant petition of appeal to the effect that the period for filing an appeal was expired.

B. 1) Subsequent supplementation of a procedural act is to allow a party to supplement the procedural act in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date of the exhaustion due to a cause not attributable to him/her (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). “A cause not attributable to the party” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a cause for which the party could not comply with the period, even though he/she had paid general attention to conduct the procedural act, even though he/she had failed to do so.

Therefore, in a case where the service of documents in a lawsuit is impossible during the process of the lawsuit and the service of public disclosure is inevitable, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, different from the case by the service of public disclosure. Thus, if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit to the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence.