beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" of the judgment as to the legitimacy of appeal for subsequent completion, refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the period despite the party's exercise of generally required care to conduct the procedural acts. In a case where the service of litigation documents or the judgment thereof is impossible as a result of the failure of being served by public notice, and the service of the litigation documents or the judgment was made by public notice, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the beginning. Thus, if the party did not know of the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence. Further, such obligation is borne, regardless of whether the party was present at the date for pleading and present at the date for pleading, whether the party was notified of the date for subsequent pleading at the date for pleading, or whether he was appointed
(2) According to the records of the court of first instance, upon receipt of the instant complaint on January 23, 2015, the court of first instance served a certified copy of the decision of performance recommendation and the notice of lawsuit guidance to the Defendant on February 2, 2015, and received it by the Defendant on April 10, 2015; the Defendant appeared and testified on May 4, 2015; the Defendant served a notice of the date of sentencing on May 4, 2015; the Defendant failed to serve the original copy of the judgment on October 2, 2015; and the fact that the period of service on June 26, 2015, which served on the Defendant on June 23, 2015, which served on the date of the closing of argument in the first instance court; and the Defendant served on the Defendant with the notice of the date of sentencing on June 2, 2015, which served on the Defendant on June 16, 2015.
In light of the above legal principles, the defendant is not the defendant.