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. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

(a) Facts under the recognition are significant or obvious in the records of this Court;

1) On January 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch, and on February 2, 2016, a duplicate of the complaint was served to Busan Shipping Daegu, which is the Defendant’s domicile, but was not served as a closed door absence. 2) On February 2, 2016, the court of first instance (i.e., the Defendant’s domicile), issued a night service and served the enforcement officer on March 2, 2016 to the Defendant’s child living together with the Defendant’s domicile.

3) On March 14, 2016, the Defendant submitted a written answer to the court of first instance on March 14, 2016. 4) Notice on the date of pleading and the Plaintiff’s copy of the briefs as of April 20, 2016 were delivered to D, who is the Defendant’s spouse, at the Defendant’s domicile on April 28, 2016.

5) On May 18, 2016, the Defendant appeared at the first instance court’s date of pleading on May 18, 2016. 6) The court of first instance rendered a ruling of the first instance that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim on June 1, 2016 after closing the pleadings on the first instance date of pleading. The original of the said judgment was served to the Defendant’s domicile but it was impossible to serve the original on the Defendant due to lack of text, and served the original of the judgment by service on July 2, 2016.

7 The Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment on July 26, 2016, when the period of appeal of two weeks elapsed from the date the service of the original copy of the judgment became effective.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is a provision on the supplement of judgment procedural acts, refers to "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the period despite the party's due diligence for conducting the procedural acts. In a case where the service of documents in a lawsuit is impossible as a result of the impossibility of being served in a method of service by public notice due to the failure of being served during the process of the lawsuit, it is different from from from from the