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. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the subsequent completion of litigation refers to "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" refers to reasons why the party could not observe the period despite the party's due diligence for conducting the litigation even though it was generally required. Thus, in a case where the service of documents related to the lawsuit is impossible as a result of the failure of service by public notice, and 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 party 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 and present at the date for pleading, whether the party was notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading, or whether the party was appointed

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082 delivered on July 22, 2004, etc.). B.

According to the records of this case, the following facts are revealed.

1) On February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. The first instance court sent a certified copy, etc. of the decision on performance recommendation to the Defendant and received it by the Defendant’s spouse on April 20, 2018. (2) The Defendant submitted the written objection, written answer, etc. to the first instance court on April 30, 2018 and May 15, 2018, and was present at the first and second dates for pleading.

3) On July 26, 2018, the first instance court notified the Defendant of the date of pronouncement at which the Defendant appeared on the second day for pleading, and sentenced the Defendant to a judgment in the absence of the Defendant on September 6, 2018. The first instance court sent the original of the judgment to the Defendant, but is not served with the addressee’s unknown address, and on September 18, 2018, the Defendant served the original of the judgment by public notice on the Defendant on October 30, 2018, and sent it to the first instance court on January 24, 2019.