사해행위취소 등
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. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service 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 to correct it within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.
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, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any other special circumstances, in ordinary cases, 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 he/she
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)
In this case, the court of first instance served a duplicate of the complaint on the defendant's domicile entered in the certified copy and abstract of resident registration, but served by public notice as the director's unknown, etc., and the court of first instance thereafter served a written notice of the date of pleading on the defendant by public notice, and served the plaintiff's claim on September 18, 2015. The original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by public notice, and reached September 24, 2015. The fact that the plaintiff received the claim seizure and collection order on January 6, 2017, and the defendant stated to the effect that the court of first instance became aware of the existence of the judgment upon perusal of the records of the case in relation to the seizure and collection order of the above claim on January 13, 2017 can be recognized by adding to the purport of evidence No. 11-1 and the entire pleadings on September 2, 2015, or it is evident that this court has made an obvious record.
(c) above;