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. Judgment on the plaintiff's defense prior to the merits

A. On May 19, 2016, the Defendant filed an appeal with the lapse of the period of appeal even if he/she received a duplicate of the complaint and a written guidance of lawsuit on May 19, 2016. The instant appeal is unlawful given that it does not constitute a case where the peremptory term cannot be complied with due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant.

B. According to Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, in a case where a party was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting the period within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. Here, “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to the grounds for not being able to observe the period despite the party’s exercise of generally required care to conduct the litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da53623, Apr. 12, 2018). The first instance court refers to the Defendant’s domicile on the Defendant’s resident registration address, and a duplicate of the complaint, a litigation guide,

The fact that N, the Defendant’s spouse on May 19, 2016, sent a summary slip, and received it is apparent in the record. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 3, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have lawfully served a duplicate, etc. of the complaint since it is recognized that there is no marital relationship after the divorce with O on December 9, 2002, and it cannot be deemed that the first instance court sent the notice of the date for pleading, the certificate submitted by the Plaintiff, and the notice of the sentencing date to the Defendant after the first instance court, but the notice was sent to the Defendant was not sent to the addressee as the addressee is unknown. The first instance court concluded the pleading on December 23, 2016 and sentenced on January 13, 2017, and the original copy of the first instance judgment was served by service by public notice on January 24, 2017, which was not served to the Defendant with the addressee whose original copy is unknown, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have become aware of the fact that the service became effective on the record No. 1.