The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.”

In this context, the "reasons for which a party cannot be held responsible" refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though the party had exercised a duty to do the act of litigation, and the party's side to supplement the act of litigation must prove the reasons.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if a person to be served was not present at a “place to be served” other than a work place, documents may be served as a person living together with the person with an intelligence to make a reasonable judgment, by delivering documents.

Here, “the place to be served” is not always confined to the domicile of a person to be served, and “a person who lives together with the same household as the person to be served is also exempted.

2. According to the records, although the original copy of the lower judgment was delivered to the Defendant’s spouse AP at the Defendant’s domicile on February 1, 2016, the Defendant had lawfully served on the Defendant as the Defendant’s spouse living together with the Defendant’s domicile, it can be found that on February 24, 2016, after the two-day period for filing a final appeal, the Defendant submitted the instant written final appeal

3. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s failure to reside in the above address and thus, was not delivered with the original copy of the lower judgment, and the period of appeal was set by being delivered from him on February 18, 2016, and thus, the Defendant’s failure to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant.

However, examining the reasoning of the Defendant’s assertion in light of the aforementioned legal principles, (1).