beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts negligent within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” Thus, where a subsequent appeal is lawful, the appeal period should not be complied with due to any cause not attributable to the appellant, and “reasons not attributable to the party” as referred to in the above provision refers to the reason why the party could not observe the said period even though he/she had paid general attention to conduct the procedural acts, he/she could not observe the said period.
According to Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, when a person to be served is not present at a place where service other than work place, documents may be served as a person living together with such person, such as a person living together with such person, by delivering documents. Here, “a person living together with the same household as the person to be served” refers to only a person living together with the same household as the person to be served, and the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know the sentence and service of the judgment, shall be asserted and proved by the party concerned who intends to complete appeal.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). B.
On April 26, 2013, the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served as "Seoul Songpa-gu 132 Dong 3001 (hereinafter "the registered domicile of this case")" which is the defendant's registered domicile, and received it as the defendant's live together with the defendant, and the court of first instance served a notice of the date of sentencing as the registered domicile of this case. The court of first instance received a notice of the date of sentencing as the defendant's registered domicile of this case. The court of first instance, on June 12, 2013, issued a judgment with the defendant's absence.