대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
1. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. 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, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or legal representative does not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases, the
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006. The first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on November 24, 201 after delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case and the notice of date for pleading to the Defendant by means of service by public notice. The fact that the original copy of the judgment also was served to the Defendant by means of service by public notice is clearly recorded. The fact that the original copy of the judgment was served to the Defendant is clearly recorded. The Defendant applied for a compulsory auction against the apartment owned by the Defendant with the provisional execution of the first instance judgment, and received the notice of the commencement of the auction and received the notice of the commencement of auction on September 29, 2016. After inspecting the litigation record of this case on September 29, 20
Thus, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case due to a cause not attributable to himself.
Therefore, from September 29, 2016, the defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice.