1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. According to the records of recognition, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) In filing the instant lawsuit on March 18, 2019, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s domicile in Pyeongtaek-si K, and entered the Plaintiff’s name in the L bridge. 2) On April 9, 2019, the first date of pleading notice sent by the court of first instance to the said domicile on April 9, 2019 was served by the Plaintiff, who is a member of the said church as stated in the complaint, and the Plaintiff appeared on May 2, 2019, which is the first date of pleading.

3) On May 23, 2019, the court of first instance concluded the pleading on the date of pleading, and notified the date of sentencing to May 23, 2019, and sentenced the judgment in the absence of the Plaintiff on the date of declaration notified. (4) The court of first instance sent the authentic copy of the written judgment to the Plaintiff on May 23, 2019, but did not serve as a closed person.

5) On June 4, 2019, the court of first instance served by public notice the authentic copy of the written judgment and came into force on June 19, 2019. (6) On July 22, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted a written appeal for the instant supplementary appellate brief.

B. As long as the original copy of the related legal principles was served by service by public notice by order of the presiding judge, even if the requirements are not satisfied, such service becomes effective by law, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive formally with the intention of the appeal period.

The legitimacy of the appeal for the subsequent completion of the above judgment should be determined separately by whether the appeal period is due to a cause not attributable to the appellant.

(2) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da30339, Jul. 27, 2001). According to Article 173(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act, where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may complete the procedural acts within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist, and “reasons not attributable to a party” provided for in the said Article refers to procedural acts.