기타(금전)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where it was impossible to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal of subsequent completion within two
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 any other 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 the original
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da8964, Jun. 11, 2015). The Defendant filed an appeal to supplement the instant case after the lapse of two weeks from the date on which the judgment of the first instance was served (the service of the original judgment, Sept. 25, 2015; the filing of an appeal to supplement the status of the original judgment; October 28, 2016); the lawsuit of the first instance is conducted by means of service from the service of the copy of the complaint to the service of the original judgment; the fact that the Defendant’s attorney perused the records of the instant case on Oct. 27, 2015 and was issued a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance; and the fact that the instant appeal was filed on Oct. 28, 2015, which is within two weeks thereafter, the instant appeal is legitimate.
2. The defendant, based on the facts identical to this case, filed a claim for damages against the defendant by his father C, which constitutes a double suit, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.
The parties concerned are intended to constitute double lawsuits pursuant to Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act.