부당이득금 반환
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. If a copy of a written complaint for determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, and an original copy of the judgment, etc., were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the
Here, “after the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044). In this case, following the service of a writ of summons to the Defendant by public notice on the date of pleading by public notice, the lawsuit was initiated. On December 18, 2012, the judgment of the first instance court was rendered in favor of the Plaintiff, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on December 28, 2012. The fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on February 23, 2015 after being issued the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance on February 12, 2015 is apparent.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant because he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered by service by public notice after receiving the original judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the defendant raised within two weeks from February 12, 2015, which received the original judgment of the court of first instance.