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 legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. According to the records of recognition, the following facts can be acknowledged:

(1) On August 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and indicated the Defendant’s address in the complaint as “Incheon-gu C”.

The court of first instance served a duplicate of the complaint as the above address, but the plaintiff was unable to serve due to the absence of a closed door, and the plaintiff filed an application for special delivery for the same address.

The court of first instance had an enforcement officer belonging to the Incheon District Court serve a copy of the complaint against the defendant directly at his/her domicile on two occasions, and the defendant's spouse received each of them on March 3, 2015 and March 28, 2015.

(2) As the Defendant did not submit a written reply one month after the lapse of the period, the court of first instance, on May 13, 2015, designated the date for a judgment without holding any pleadings, and served the notice of the sentencing date as the address above. The Defendant’s child received it around 12:39 on May 4, 2015.

(3) On June 10, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the absence of the Defendant on the above sentencing date, and served the original copy of the judgment on May 26, 2015, which did not serve the original copy as the addressee’s unknown address, served by public notice. The above service by public notice became effective on June 10, 2015.

(4) On December 7, 2015, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion.

B. (1) The phrase “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, which is a provision on the lawful requirements of the appeal, refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the time limit, even though the party had exercised generally required care to conduct the procedural acts. In a case where the service of documents in the process of a lawsuit was impossible due to the inevitable reason that the service of documents in the process of the lawsuit was made in the manner of service by public notice from the beginning.