약정금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the following part ordering payment.
If an appeal after subsequent completion is served by service of public notice, a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc., barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, may file an appeal subsequent to subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause has occurred in a foreign country at the time when the cause ceases to exist
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
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)
According to the records, in the first instance court, the duplicate of the complaint of this case was impossible to be served to the defendant as "closed absence," and the lawsuit was initiated from the beginning by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment also was served by public notice is obvious in the record, so it is reasonable to view that the defendant was unaware of the delivery of the judgment of the first instance without negligence. Thus, the appeal
Basic Facts
In the case of a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and C and D, the building for the F Ground Accommodation Facility in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si (hereinafter “the instant cartel”) was registered as the original C and D own one half of each share.
On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between C and D with the terms that the Plaintiff leases the instant Moel with a deposit of KRW 600 million, monthly rent of KRW 16 million, and the term of lease from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2014.
(c).