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. The following facts are apparent in the record:

On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for advertising price claim with Seoul Southern District Court 2014Gaso93383, and the Defendant’s office C received a certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building 505, which is the location of the Defendant’s principal office, on August 7, 2014.

B. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant submitted a written objection and a written answer with respect to the decision on performance recommendation to the court of first instance, and the Defendant’s representative E was served with a duplicate of the legal brief dated August 25, 2014 at the location of the Defendant’s head office on August 29, 2014.

C. On October 15, 2014, the court of first instance served a notice on the date of first instance as the seat of the Defendant’s head office, but served on October 24, 2014, which did not serve on the date of first instance, and concluded the pleading on November 12, 2014 on the date of first instance. On November 13, 2014, the court served the notice on the date of first instance as the seat of the Defendant’s head office, but did not serve on the date of first instance as the seat of the director. On November 24, 2014, the court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s entire claim on November 26, 2014.

On December 4, 2014, the court of first instance served a certified copy of the judgment on December 4, 2014 to the location of the defendant's main office, but was not served due to the absence of closure, by public notice on December 17, 2014.

Accordingly, the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance came into effect on January 1, 2015, and the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on January 26, 2015 where the appeal period has expired.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason why the party could not observe the period even though the party had exercised generally due diligence for conducting procedural acts. In a case where a document of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and is served by public notice, it shall be from the beginning.