1. The defendant D's appeal shall be dismissed;

2. The judgment of the court of first instance, including a claim for exchange change in this court.

1. We examine the legitimacy of Defendant D’s subsequent appeal, ex officio, as to the legitimacy of Defendant D’s subsequent appeal.

A. Defendant D’s assertion is aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice to himself/herself, and that the judgment of the first instance was rendered. However, Defendant D’s assertion is lawful, inasmuch as he/she was aware of the fact that he/she was being investigated by a case, such as fraud, at the office of the Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office in the former District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that he/she was issued a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance at the time of March 20, 2019, which was later and later received on March 20, 2019.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s exercise of general duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where the documents of litigation cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the first delivery of a copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. Thus, if a party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period due to his/her failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it shall not be deemed that the party is liable for any reason for not being responsible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). Such obligation bears the burden, regardless of whether the party was present at the date for pleading and pleading, whether the party was notified of the date for pleading

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da50152 Decided October 2, 1998, etc.). However, ① a duplicate of the instant complaint submitted by the Plaintiffs to the first instance court was served on Defendant D on August 16, 2017, and ② the first instance court on October 20, 2017.