약정금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. 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, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.
In addition, the term “the date on which a cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall 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 or
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
In this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on June 5, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of date for pleading with respect to the Defendant by public notice. The original judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. On June 15, 2015, the Defendant becomes aware of the existence of the judgment after receiving a notice of acceptance of claim from the three credit information company on June 19, 2015, and was issued an original copy of the judgment on June 19, 2015. The fact that the subsequent appeal was filed on June 24, 2015 is either recognizable by the evidence No. 1 and 2, or is apparent by the record.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant came to know of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served on June 19, 2015 through service by public notice. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.
2. Basic facts
A. Each of the instant cases.