The appeal of this case is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A judgment of the first instance court in the purport of the claim and appeal.

1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. The following facts revealed that the progress of the first instance trial and the progress of the subsequent appeal are apparent in records:

1) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and the court of first instance served the Defendant’s written answer on April 12, 2019 to the service place of the Plaintiff as stated in the written complaint. 2) The court of first instance referred the instant case to conciliation.

(Seoul District Court 2019ss. 109587). The Plaintiff appeared on the date of mediation on June 17, 2019, but did not reach an agreement with the Defendant.

3) The court of first instance served a notice of the date for pleading on the Plaintiff’s place of delivery as indicated in the complaint. 4) The Plaintiff appeared and testified at the first date for pleading ( August 27, 2019) and received notice of the pronouncement date ( September 14, 2019) in the court after the closure of pleadings.

5) On the date of the declaration notified as above, the Plaintiff was absent, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. 6) The court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment two times as the service place of the Plaintiff’s written in the written complaint, but it was impossible to serve the original copy due to the absence

7) On October 21, 2019, the court of first instance served an original copy of the judgment to the Plaintiff by means of public notice. On November 5, 2019, the service of the original copy of the judgment became effective on November 5, 2019. (8) The Plaintiff was issued the original copy of the judgment on March 18, 2020, and submitted a subsequent appeal to the court of first instance on March 23, 2020.

B. 1) In a case where a party to the relevant legal doctrine was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts by neglecting to do so within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist (the main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil and Private Forwarding Act “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to the grounds for which the party could not comply with the period even though he/she had paid general attention to do the procedural acts, even though

As a result, it is impossible to serve documents of lawsuit during the process of litigation, the method of service by public notice is inevitable.