beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
Judgment on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. 1) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on April 7, 2015, and the court of first instance issued a duplicate of the complaint to the Defendant at the Defendant’s domicile recorded in the written complaint on April 17, 2015, via a mail office clerk. 2) On May 28, 2015, the court of first instance sent the notice of the date for pleading to the Defendant on May 28, 2015, but the delivery was impossible due to the absence of a closed text, and sent the notice on June 10, 2015.
3) On June 19, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that the argument is concluded while the Defendant was absent on June 19, 2015. (4) On July 11, 2015, the court of first instance sent the original copy of the judgment of first instance to the Defendant on July 11, 2015, but it was impossible to serve the original copy of the judgment of first instance by means of service on August 13, 2015, and on August 28, 2015, the service became effective.
5) On December 1, 2015, after the period of appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance expires, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of first instance on December 1, 2015.
B. Determination 1) The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation conducted within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” The term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the grounds for not being able to observe the period despite the party’s duty of care to perform the litigation in general (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082, Jul. 22, 2004). In the meantime, where the document of litigation cannot be served by public notice because it was served by public notice due to a cause not attributable to him/her during the process of litigation, it is different from the case where the first delivery of the copy of the complaint was conducted by public notice from the date of service by public notice.