1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

We examine the legitimacy of the appeal filed by the defendant.

1. The relevant legal doctrine shall be lodged within two weeks from the date on which the written judgment was served (main sentence of Article 396(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and the period is a peremptory term.

(2) Paragraph (2) of the same Article: Provided, That in case where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.

(Article 173(1) main text of the same Act. Here, the "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" refers to the reasons why the party could not abide by the time limit despite the party's exercise of generally required care to conduct the procedural acts, and as regards such reasons, the party's assertion and proof must be made on the part of the party seeking to supplement the procedural acts.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, etc.). Meanwhile, in principle, the service of documents to be delivered to the person to be served at the domicile, residence, place of business or office of the person to be served (Articles 178(1) and 183(1) of the same Act) may be based on a supplementary service, if the service institution fails to summon the person to serve at the place to serve the documents at the above “place to serve documents” as a clerical staff, employee, or cohabitant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da4730, Oct. 11, 201).

(1) Article 186(1) of the same Act provides that “a person who lives together with another person who actually belongs to the same household as the person to be served with the person to be served is exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da215356, Jul. 7, 2016).

① On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. The court served a duplicate of the complaint as the principal office of the Defendant Company, but served the copy on the Defendant’s representative E’s resident registration address in order to not serve the copy as the director’s unknown, and then served the copy on the E’s resident registration address on October 4, 2015.