The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

ex officio, the appeal of this case is lawful.

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to comply with a peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.”

The term "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the period even though the party had exercised a general duty to do the act of litigation.

If the service of documents by public notice is inevitable as a result of the impossibility of being served during the process of litigation, it is the duty of the parties to investigate the progress of litigation even if it is different from the case by public notice from the beginning.

Therefore, if the parties did not know the progress of a lawsuit in the court, it shall not be deemed that there is no negligence by the parties, and such obligations are to be borne, regardless of whether the parties present at the date of pleading and present at the date of pleading, whether the parties were notified of the date of pleading following the date of pleading

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844 Decided March 10, 2006). The record reveals the following facts.

On November 19, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the plaintiff on November 19, 2015.

On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal, and entered the Defendant’s address as the address of the court according to the order of correction of the court. Accordingly, as a result, the lower court served a duplicate of the petition of appeal on the address of the Defendant, a person living with Qu, who is his/her father, received it on February 26, 2016.

The court of original judgment shall, after being served with the notice of the first date for pleading on the domicile above, be deemed to be a director known.