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. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. As long as the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court was served on the defendant by means of service by public notice, the requirements are incomplete.

Even if the service is valid, the judgment of the court of first instance becomes formally final and conclusive due to the limit of the appeal period, and the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of appeal is determined separately by the defendant's failure to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

(2) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A party’s failure to perform his/her procedural act” refers to a party’s failure to comply with the period despite having been generally required to perform the procedural act. In cases where the service of litigation documents during the process of a lawsuit is impossible through service by public notice as a result of the impossibility of being served by public notice, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning. Thus, if the parties did not know of the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there was no negligence. This obligation is borne, regardless of whether the parties were present and present at the date for pleading and present at the date for pleading, whether the parties were notified of the date for pleading following the date for pleading, or whether the legal representative was appointed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844 Decided March 10, 2006, etc.). B.

Judgment

ex officio, the following facts are clear in the records of this case, or are significant in this court:

① On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On April 16, 2015, the court of first instance sent a copy of the complaint and a written guidance of lawsuit via mail to the Defendant’s “C, Changwon-si, Changwon-si,” which is the Defendant’s domicile recorded in the written complaint on April 16, 2015, but on the same day.