손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on June 26, 2012 after serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, the date of pleading, the notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and then serving the Defendant by public notice, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time. On October 19, 2016, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice only after filing an application for perusal and duplication with this court on October 19, 2016, and after obtaining a certified copy of the judgment, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, and on October 19, 2016.
According to the above facts, the defendant could not be able to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory period, because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself. Thus, the appeal filed within two weeks from the time the defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice was filed within the lawful period of appeal, and is a lawful appeal that satisfies the requirements
2. Basic facts
A. On August 19, 2011, the Defendant, while engaging in a dispute with the Plaintiff at the Yak field of the Racing Education and Culture Center, exercised violence, such as making the Plaintiff satisf and satn the Plaintiff’s face at one time due to drinking, satisfing the Plaintiff’s chest and neck, etc., satching the Plaintiff’s chest and satch, smoking tobacco, and forced the Plaintiff’s hair to satn the Plaintiff’s hair and satisf, satfing the Plaintiff’s hair, satisfing the Plaintiff’s satch, and supporting the Plaintiff’s arms who suffered a half of a cigarette
(hereinafter “instant harmful act”). B.
On November 23, 2011, the Defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 2 million due to the instant harmful act, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
(F) Daegu District Court 201No. 226) c.
The plaintiff needs to provide two weeks' medical treatment due to the harmful act of this case.