The appeal shall be dismissed.

The defendant shall bear the costs of appeal.

ex officio, the appeal of this case is lawful.

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date when such cause ceases to exist;

"" is defined as ".

In this context, "the reason why the party cannot be responsible" refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the period even though the party has fulfilled the duty of care to conduct the litigation.

Where it is inevitable to serve documents of a lawsuit in a public disclosure as a result of the impossibility of serving documents of a lawsuit in the course of the lawsuit, the case is different from the case by serving documents of public disclosure from the beginning and the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit

Therefore, if the parties did not know the progress of a lawsuit before the court, the parties’ negligence may be recognized. Such obligations are assessed against the parties, regardless of whether they were present at the date of pleading and present at the hearing, whether they were notified of the date of pleading following the date of pleading at the hearing, and whether they were appointed a litigation representative (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844, Mar. 10, 2006, etc.). 2. The records reveal the following facts.

The defendant was present on the second hearing date of the court below and was notified of the sentencing date, and the judgment of the court below was pronounced on the date of the judgment notified ( July 8, 2020).

On July 27, 2020, the court of original judgment rendered a public notice to the defendant on July 27, 2020 when the main text of the ruling was not served due to the absence of a closed text, and the notice became effective at the time of August 12, 2020.

On September 22, 2020, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion by stating the changed address on the ground that “the Defendant was unable to view the judgment as having been served by serving the public notice due to lack of identity of address”.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant is on the date of pleadings in the lower court.