임금
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, in the event that the service of a copy of the complaint of legality of the subsequent appeal, an original copy of the judgment, etc. was made by service by public notice. 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 is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent
The phrase "when the reason has ceased to exist" refers to the time when the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by service by public notice, and in ordinary cases, only when the defendant reads the records of the case or received the original copy of the new judgment, the defendant should be deemed to have become aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. However, in case where the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was in question and there are special circumstances to be recognizable as a matter of course to social norms, it shall be deemed that the defendant had become aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice at the time when the ordinary time used to inquire about the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice,
(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Da224658 Decided July 25, 2019, and Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 Decided February 9, 199, etc.). According to the health records and records, the original copy of the instant complaint and the judgment of the first instance are recognized to have been served each by means of service by public notice. The Defendant stated that the Plaintiff sent the judgment from the Plaintiff as a cell phone and became aware of the fact that the judgment was pronounced on April 10, 2020, and there are no circumstances suggesting that the first instance judgment was pronounced prior to that.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant did not know the service of the first instance judgment without negligence, and therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable for it.