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. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent or obvious to this Court in the records:

1) On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. The court of first instance sent a duplicate of the instant complaint to the Defendant by mail delivery to the Defendant’s address under the Seocho-si apartment and transfer 207, but was not served as a closed door door on February 16, 2016. The court of first instance sent the duplicate of the instant complaint to the Defendant’s address by means of delivery to the enforcement officer, and received it as a liveer on March 9, 2016.2) On April 1, 2016, the court of first instance sent the notice of the date of pleading to the Defendant’s address, but did not serve as a closed door door, and sent it on the same day.

3) On April 27, 2016, the court of first instance sentenced the judgment on the same day following the date for the first pleading, and served the original of the judgment to the address above, but it was impossible to serve the original of the judgment due to lack of text. On May 16, 2016, the court of first instance served the original of the judgment by means of service by public notice, and on May 31, 2016, the service became effective. 4) On December 27, 2016, the Defendant filed an appeal to complete the instant appeal.

B. 1) As long as the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice according to the order of the presiding judge, even if it did not meet the requirements, such service is valid, and the above judgment becomes formally final and conclusive upon the expiration of the appeal period. The legitimacy of the subsequent appeal against the above judgment ought to be separately determined by whether the failure to observe the appeal period was due to any cause for which the appellant is not responsible (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da30339, Jul. 27, 2001). The term “reasons for which a party cannot be responsible” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to “reasons for which a party is not responsible” provided by Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, even though the party had exercised due diligence