손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff shall be fully paid KRW 647,00 to the Defendant and its related amount from January 14, 2015.
1. The legality of a subsequent appeal;
A. In a case where a copy of a complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term “when the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative was simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstance, in ordinary cases, the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
Judgment
On April 3, 2015, the first instance court rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on April 3, 2015, after serving a copy of the complaint, notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and served the plaintiff on April 9, 2015. The original of the judgment also served on the plaintiff by public notice and became effective as service on April 9, 2015. On July 8, 2016, the defendant was served with a written questioning of the case on the non-performance list, etc. (Seosan Branch Branch District Court Decision 2015Kau1638), and the fact that the plaintiff filed an appeal on the instant subsequent completion on July 11, 2016 is apparent in the record.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, and that the first instance judgment was served on July 8, 2016 by means of service by public notice. The instant appeal filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.
2. Matters concerning the merits.