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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent in, or obvious to, the record:
1) On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with the U.S. District Court No. 2016 tea3247 against the Defendant. On October 31, 2016, the Defendant served the original copy of the payment order with the “Ulsan Nam-gu C” and filed an objection on November 3, 2016, and the instant case was implemented as the instant lawsuit. (2) The first instance court served the Defendant a notice of the date for pleading on the said domicile, but the court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on December 10, 2017, when it served the notice to the Defendant on the date for pleading on December 8, 2016.
3) On January 12, 2017, the court of first instance served an original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the Defendant at the address above, but did not serve the original copy of the judgment due to the absence of closure. On January 20, 2017, the original copy of the judgment was served by means of service by public notice, and became effective on February 4, 2017. (4) The Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on August 31, 2017 when the period for appeal expires.
B. Determination 1) 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 the party to be unable to comply with the period even though the party fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct procedural acts. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, a document of lawsuit cannot be served by public notice. As such, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period due to the failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the party is due to a reason for which it cannot be held responsible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). According to the foregoing facts, the Defendant’s original copy of the instant payment order is legitimate.