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. The plaintiff asserts that the appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal for subsequent completion is examined as to this.
A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is a provision on the lawful requirements of appeal for completion of the relevant legal principles, refers to the reason why the parties could not observe the period, even though the parties had exercised generally required care to conduct the said procedural acts. In a case where the service of documents in the course of a lawsuit was impossible and the service of documents in the process of service by public notice was inevitable as a result, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the beginning. Thus, if the parties did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there was no negligence. Further, such obligation is borne, regardless of whether the parties appeared and present at the date for pleading, whether the parties were notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading, whether they were appointed the legal representative or not.
B. In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant: (a) served a certified copy of the instant recommendations on performance on May 9, 2014; (b) served a written objection on May 15, 2014; (c) served a first instance court notice on June 5, 2014; and (d) served on June 19, 2014; and (c) served on the date of pleading on June 12, 2014; (d) was sentenced on December 12, 2014; and (e) served on the Defendant on December 29, 2014 and served on January 13, 2015 after it was impossible to serve on the Defendant twice as the addressee; and (e) the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on December 24, 2015, after the lapse of two weeks; and (e) ought to be aware of the status and result of the instant lawsuit in the process of the Defendant’s appeal even if the Defendant did not appear to be negligent.