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. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff received the instant complaint. On May 29, 2015, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint with the Defendant’s domicile recorded in the complaint and the seat of the corporate head office, “Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, 40,” and the Defendant’s representative director received a duplicate of the complaint from the mail office clerk on June 3, 2015. (2) The Defendant was served with the duplicate of the complaint, but did not submit a written answer within one month.

On July 7, 2015, the court of first instance sent a notice of the sentencing date to the address above, but the service was impossible due to the absence of a closed door, and the service was sent on July 16, 2015.

3) On July 28, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of all Plaintiff 10:00. (4) On July 28, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of all Plaintiff, which sent the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance to the Defendant at the above address on July 28, 2015, but the delivery of the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was impossible due to the absence of closure, and served the original copy of the judgment by service by public notice on August 4, 2015. On August 19, 2015, the service became effective.

5) On September 18, 2015, after the period for filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance expires, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of first instance on September 18, 2015. 【The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the fact

B. 1) The main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” However, the term “reasons not attributable to the party” in this context refers to the reason why the party was unable to comply with the period despite the party’s duty of care to perform the litigation, even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to perform the litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16082, Jul. 22, 2004). Meanwhile, as a result, the delivery of documents relating to the lawsuit is impossible, the method of service by publication is inevitable