양수금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.
3...
1. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment regarding the legitimacy of the appeal of this case were served 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 was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and thus, he/she may file an appeal of subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause was in a foreign country at the time of extinguishment of the cause)
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. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should 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 copy
(2) On November 10, 2015, the first instance court rendered a judgment on May 26, 2010 after serving a copy of the complaint of this case and a notice of the date for pleading on the grounds of service by public notice. The original judgment also served the original judgment by public notice. On November 10, 2015, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the first instance court was served by public notice after inspecting and copying the records of this case, and only being served by public notice, on November 18, 2015, the first instance court’s notice of the date for pleading was presented to the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant could not observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, because he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the first instance without negligence.