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. The period of appeal was exceeded since the defendant's head of the defendant who received the copy of the complaint of this case and the defendant's head of the defendant who received the notice of the sentencing date did not deliver the above documents to the defendant, and the defendant was unaware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced. Since the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced, the appeal of this case was lawful.

B. 1) Subsequent completion of procedural acts stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers only to a case where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her. Here, “reasons not attributable to him/her” refers to a case where the party is unable to comply with the pertinent period despite his/her due care to conduct such procedural acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da9622, Jun. 11, 1999). Meanwhile, under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if a person was not present at a place where service is to be made at a place other than his/her work place, the document may be served by delivering it to his/her clerk, employee, or cohabitant, and the circumstances where the party was unable to comply with the appeal period due to his/her failure to know the sentence and delivery of the judgment, and the court of the first instance, which is the defendant’s domicile after subsequent completion of the appeal shall be asserted and presented at the defendant’s domicile (see, 20. 3.1, G.213).