1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Whether the appeal is lawful;

A. The following facts are significant in this Court:

1) In filing the instant lawsuit on January 9, 2019, the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s domicile in Daegu-gu Together B and C. 2) On January 30, 2019, the Plaintiff served the Defendant’s reply on January 29, 2019, and the date of pleading on April 11, 2019, and was present on the date of pleading on April 26, 2019.

3) On May 17, 2019, the first instance court concluded the pleadings on the date of pleading, and notified the date of sentencing to May 17, 2019, and sentenced the judgment in a state that the Plaintiff was absent on the date of declaration notified. 4) On May 20, 2019, the first instance court sent the original copy of the judgment to the Plaintiff’s domicile as indicated in the written complaint, but did not serve as a closed door.

Accordingly, the first instance court served the original copy of the judgment on May 28, 2019 and served the original copy on June 12, 2019.

5 The Plaintiff submitted the instant petition of appeal to the first instance court on July 10, 2019.

B. According to Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the administrative litigation pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting it within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.”

In this context, “reasons for which a party cannot be held responsible” refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period despite the party’s duty to act in the course of litigation, and where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of service by public notice because it was ordinarily in the course of the litigation, it is a duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice to the party, as the case is different from the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice from the first written complaint to the case where the lawsuit was conducted by public notice. Thus, if the party concerned failed to investigate the progress of the lawsuit