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. The facts below the facts of recognition are either apparent in the records or obvious to this Court.

On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit. On November 24, 2017, the court of first instance, which was the Defendant’s domicile, “In Incheon Gyeyang-gu Apartment and D, an execution officer was served.” On December 10, 2017, the Defendant received the copy of the instant complaint from the execution officer and rejected the signature and seal on the reason of service.

B. On December 19, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on December 12, 2018, after delivering a notice of the date of pleading to the Defendant’s address above, but became impossible to serve due to the absence of closure.

On February 21, 2018, the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment as the defendant's domicile, but it was impossible to serve the original copy due to the absence of documents, service by public notice was served on February 21, 2018, and on March 8, 2018.

C. On October 22, 2018, the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal against the judgment of the first instance on which the period for filing an appeal expired.

2. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act of determining the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion refers to the reason why the parties could not observe the time limit even though the parties had exercised generally the duty of care to conduct the procedural acts.

In a case where the service of litigation documents is inevitable due to service by public notice as a result of the impossibility of being served during the course of the lawsuit, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, as it differs from the case by public notice. Thus, if the parties did not know the progress of the lawsuit to the court, it shall not be deemed that there is no

Such obligations shall be borne, regardless of whether the parties have attended and heard on the date for pleading, whether they have been notified of the date for pleading following the date for pleading, or whether they have appointed an attorney

Supreme Court on November 14, 2017