양수금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. According to the records of this case, the first instance court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on July 20, 2007 after serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date for pleading by public notice, with respect to the Defendant, and subsequently serving the Defendant as a favorable judgment on July 20, 2007. The original judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant obtained the authentic copy of the first instance judgment on November 2, 2016, and became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered and served by public notice, and that the subsequent appeal was filed on November 8, 2016.
According to the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant did not know of the progress and result of the lawsuit in this case due to a cause not attributable to himself, and failed to observe the peremptory appeal period, which is the peremptory period, filed an appeal of this case within two weeks after he became aware of the progress and result of the lawsuit in the first instance.
Therefore, the appeal of this case is lawful.
B. On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) deemed that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered on October 24, 2016, when he was served with a written questioning of the case on the defaulters’ list, Seoul Eastern District Court 2016Kau1777. Thus, the appeal of this case filed 14 days after the lapse of 14 days thereafter is unlawful. 2) The term “when the cause ceases to exist” under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the time when the Defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, but the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice was known. In ordinary cases, barring any other special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice only when the Defendant perused the records of the relevant case or received a new authentic copy of the judgment. However, the Defendant