수용보상금반환 청구의 소
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, upon a claim that the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) changed in exchange for another court.
1. If a copy of a written complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, and the 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 was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after
Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment.
(2) On November 7, 2017, the Defendant did not know that the Defendant had no knowledge of the fact that the Defendant filed the instant appeal on November 9, 2017 by submitting the text of the judgment of the first instance to the preparatory document on November 3, 2017 (Seoul Western District Court 2017Da3188) and became aware of the fact that the Defendant had no knowledge of the fact that the Defendant had served the Defendant by means of public notice on the health room, the copy of the instant complaint, and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance. As seen above, insofar as the original copy and the original copy of the judgment were served on the Defendant by means of public notice, the Defendant could not be held liable for the peremptory term of the judgment on the ground that the Defendant did not know of the fact that the Defendant had no knowledge of the fact.