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. We examine the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case.
A. In light of the foregoing, “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period despite the party’s exercise of the duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of service during the process of litigation, the first delivery of copies of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot
Furthermore, the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the appeal period due to the failure to know the declaration and service of the judgment should be proved by the parties who want to supplement the appeal later.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10394 Decided March 28, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10394, Mar. 28, 2013). In addition, in a case where an obligor raises a lawful objection against a payment order, a lawsuit is deemed to have been instituted regarding the value of the purpose of a claim for which an objection was raised at the time of filing a request for a payment order (see, e.g., Article 472(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and in view of the court’s practice where the obligor served with the obligor when filing a request for a payment order, there is no reason to
B. In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health account for the instant case, ① the Defendant at the Daegu Suwon-gu, the Defendant’s domicile on September 2, 2015.