beta
Text
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case
A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s exercise of general duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by public notice, the first delivery of the copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). B.
The court of first instance sent a duplicate of the instant complaint to the Defendant’s domicile, and received it on October 7, 2016, and the court of first instance sent the first date of pleading to the Defendant’s domicile, and the first instance court did not serve the Defendant’s address, and thus served the Defendant on October 25, 2016. The Defendant submitted a written answer to the court of first instance on November 9, 2016. The Defendant sent the second date of pleading to the Defendant’s domicile, and the second date of pleading was not served on November 25, 2016. The delivery was made by means of delivery to the Defendant on November 25, 2016. The court of first instance sent the notice to the Defendant’s domicile. The court of first instance sent the original copy to the Defendant by means of delivery to the Defendant on January 2, 2017. The court of first instance did not serve the Defendant’s domicile as the Defendant’s address, and the Defendant did not serve the Defendant on February 27, 2012.