1. The appeal of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

This paper examines the legitimacy of appeal filed by the defendant after the subsequent completion of employment.

1. The phrase “reasons for which a party is not liable” as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the grounds why the party could not observe the period even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of service during the process of the lawsuit, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the first delivery of a copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, and thus fails to observe the peremptory period

On the other hand, the circumstances where there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the lack of knowledge of the pronouncement and service of the judgment must be proved by the parties who intend to complete the appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). 2. The present status of delivery to the Defendant of the first instance court, which is significant in this Court, is as follows.

A duplicate of the complaint of this case: A notice of the first date of pleading (including the date of alteration) at the defendant's domicile on April 4, 2018 (including the date of receipt by the defendant himself/herself): A notice of the third date of pleading (including the defendant's appearance on the date of pleading): A notice of the third date of pleading (deficial absence): A notice of impossible service (deficial absence) (deficial absence) and service by public notice (deficial absence) (deficial absence on December 29, 2018), the defendant, on January 29, 2019.

3. According to the legal principles cited earlier, unlike the case where a duplicate of complaint was served by public notice from the beginning, the defendant himself/herself was legally served at his/her domicile, and even the defendant was present at the first day for pleading of the first instance trial, and thus, the defendant is even more and more and more in the first instance trial.