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. We examine the plaintiff's main defense that the defendant's appeal is lawful or unlawful.

The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to observe 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.”

The term "reasons for which a party cannot be held responsible" in the above provision refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the period even though he/she had due diligence to do the procedural acts.

In addition, according to Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when a person to receive service is not present at a place other than a work place, documents may be served by delivering documents to a person who is man of sense as a person living together with the person to receive service. Here, “a person living together” refers only to a person living together with the same household as the person to receive service, and the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know the sentence and service of the judgment, shall be asserted and proved by the party who intends to complete the subsequent appeal.

(1) The Defendant’s written notice of pronouncement was served on October 11, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). The duplicate of the instant written complaint was served on the Defendant’s domicile, “Yannam-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, 102 Dong 203 (hereinafter “instant registered domicile”) and was living in the said address, and the Defendant’s written notice of pronouncement was served as a person living in the Defendant. The Defendant’s written notice of pronouncement was impossible to serve as a director’s unknown on February 1, 2016, and was impossible to serve as a closed statement on February 11, 2016. The written notice of the change of the date of pronouncement was served to the Defendant on February 16, 2016, but became impossible to serve as a closed statement on February 16, 2016.