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 appeal is lawful after subsequent completion;

A. The defendant's assertion that he was served with a duplicate of the complaint of this case and signed the name of the defendant, and the defendant did not deliver it to the defendant, and the defendant did not know that the lawsuit of this case is pending. The court of first instance did not know that the original copy of the judgment was served by service by public notice and was served on December 14, 2015, and the judgment of the court of first instance was served to the defendant by service by public notice. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful as the subsequent appeal.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though the party fulfilled his/her general duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. Thus, where the service of documents related to a lawsuit was impossible as a result of the failure to serve the documents in the process of the lawsuit by public notice, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, even if it is different from that of service by public notice. Thus, if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence. Such duty of investigation shall be borne, regardless of whether the party was present and present at the date of pleading, whether the party appointed

(1) A written notice of the first instance court’s first date for pleading is an official document and a written notice of the change is presumed to have been given. A written notice of the reason for service, which is written and submitted to a court under Article 178 of the Civil Procedure Act, is presumed to have been made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2000Mo42, Aug. 22, 2000). As to this case, the health care unit, the first date for pleading of the first instance court, as the absence of a written notice of the change.