1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1.The following facts of recognition shall be significant to this Court:

On October 16, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the full amount under the Changwon District Court 2014Kadan13931.

B. On October 31, 2014, the court of the first instance served a duplicate of the instant complaint on the part of the Defendant’s main office as “135, 4 stories for the sale of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and received the Defendant’s employees B on October 31, 2014.”

C. On December 9, 2014, the court of first instance served a notice of the sentencing date to the above address and received the Defendant’s employee C on December 9, 2014.

On December 18, 2014, the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment to the above address, and the defendant's employee B received it on December 22, 2014.

E. On February 24, 2015, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance for two weeks, which was the appeal period, from the date on which the original copy of the said judgment was served.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Since B, an employee of the Defendant who received a written argument in the judgment of the first instance, did not timely deliver the written notice of the judgment of the first instance to the Defendant, the period of appeal was limited since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was pronounced, and thereafter, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was pronounced, and filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of appeal of this case, which

B. 1) Subsequent completion of procedural acts under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers only to a case where the parties could not comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them, and “reasons not attributable to the parties” here refers to a case where the parties could not comply with the period despite the parties’ due diligence to do the procedural acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da14465, Sept. 15, 2005).