beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion refers to the grounds for which the parties are unable to observe the period despite the parties' due diligence to perform the procedural acts. If the service of documents related to the lawsuit is impossible in the course of the lawsuit by public notice as a result of the failure to serve the documents related to the lawsuit by public notice, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning. Thus, if the parties did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence. Further, such obligations are borne, regardless of whether the parties were present and present at the date for pleading, whether the parties were notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading, whether the parties were notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading at which the lawsuit was present, or whether they were appointed
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082 Decided July 22, 2004). The defendant served a written complaint of this case on June 24, 2015 through service by enforcement officers. The court of first instance, which did not serve the judgment of this case on September 15, 2015, served the defendant by means of service by public notice, and the service of this case on October 1, 2015, is obvious to this court. The defendant filed the appeal of this case on May 20, 2016, which was after the period of appeal of two weeks from the date when service by public notice became effective.
In light of the above legal principles, as long as the defendant was served with the complaint of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was negligent in not knowing the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's failure to observe the period of appeal was caused by a cause not attributable to
Therefore, the appeal of this case is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for subsequent completion, which is filed after the period of appeal expires.
2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is correct.