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. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful
A. The Defendant’s domicile on the Defendant’s resident registration address is Suwon-si F apartment and G, and the Defendant was served with the Plaintiff’s complaint (payment order) from the court of first instance to the above address and sent the written objection to the Defendant. However, even before July 2018, the Defendant did not continue to reside at the above address as he was on duty at the Pyeongtaek-si Port and the port of first instance, and the Defendant’s spouse, mother, etc. residing at the above address was unable to receive the notice on the date of pleading, which was served by the court of first instance on the grounds of service activities or old age, etc.
Therefore, since the defendant could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to himself, the appeal of this case is lawful.
B. In the case of an appeal for subsequent completion of judgment, the reason for subsequent completion should be proved only to the extent that the existence of the reason for subsequent completion is the fact of public notice or obvious fact to the court, so a person who filed an appeal for subsequent completion shall assert and prove that he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to himself/herself, and that he/she filed an appeal which has been negligent within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. This constitutes a litigation requirement and thus, the court shall deliberate ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da21222, Jan. 30, 200). Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “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 within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the phrase “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to the reason for failing to comply with the due period even though the party had to do so required for conducting the litigation.
Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2083 Decided March 12, 2004