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. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case refers to the reasons why the parties could not observe the period even though the parties had exercised generally the duty to perform the procedural acts. In a case where the service of documents relating to a lawsuit in the course of a lawsuit was impossible as a result of the impossibility of being served by means of service by public notice, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the beginning. Thus, if the parties did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there is no negligence, and such obligation is not committed if the parties did not know of the progress of the lawsuit at the court, and whether they were present at the date for pleading and present at the date for pleading, whether they were notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading, or whether they were appointed the legal representative.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da211886, Oct. 30, 2014). Moreover, the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know the sentence and service of the judgment, etc., should be proved by the party who intends to subsequently supplement an appeal.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012). The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the court of first instance on March 28, 2018 against the Defendant and C, and the Defendant’s spouse F was served with a duplicate of the complaint on April 26, 2018 at the Defendant’s domicile; and thereafter, the court of first instance delivered the Defendant a notice of the sentencing date to the Defendant on June 4, 2018, and the Defendant was directly served on the Defendant on June 4, 2018; the court of first instance sent the notice of change to the Defendant on June 14, 2018, but it was impossible to serve the notice of change to the Defendant on the closed date on June 14, 2018. When the recipient was missing on June 22, 2018, the service by means of registered mail was made at the Defendant’s domicile.