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 the appeal is lawful after subsequent completion;

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason why the party could not observe the period even though he/she has exercised a general duty to do the procedural acts. In cases where the service of documents related to a lawsuit was impossible as a result of the failure to serve the documents in the process of the lawsuit by public notice, and where the service of documents related to the lawsuit was made in a method of service by public notice, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit 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. Further, such obligation is a matter of whether the party was present at the date for pleading and pleading, whether the party was notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading, whether the party was

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082 Decided July 22, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 97Da50152 Decided October 2, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 86Da2224 Decided March 10, 198; and Supreme Court Decision 86Da2224 Decided March 10, 198; etc.). Moreover, the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know the pronouncement and service of the judgment, shall be asserted and proved by the party who intends to subsequently supplement the appeal.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012). B.

Judgment

1. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case against the defendant, etc. at the first instance court. He was a person living together with the defendant and served a duplicate of the complaint on August 26, 2016 at the defendant's domicile as a person living together with the defendant. After that, the first instance court served a notice on each of the dates for pleading 1 through 3, and a notice on a sentencing date on each of the dates for pleading 1 through 3, but a notice on the date for pleading 1 was served on the defendant, but it was impossible to serve each of the dates due to the defendant'