양수금
1. The supplementary appeal of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. Determination on the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of appeal
A. On March 21, 2006, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. 2) On June 30, 2006, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on the date following the closure of pleadings, where the Defendant was absent, after serving the duplicate of the instant complaint, the litigation guide, and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice, on June 30, 2006.
3) On August 10, 2006, the court of first instance served the authentic copy of the judgment by public notice. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive on August 25, 2008. 4) The Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea and 49137 to extend the prescription of the instant claim, and the said court issued the payment order on July 20, 2016.
5) On July 26, 2016, the Defendant directly served the original of the above payment order and the guide for a lawsuit, and on August 3, 2016, the Defendant filed an objection against the payment order on August 3, 2016. (6) The Defendant filed an appeal for the instant supplementary appeal on October 25, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Cleared Facts in records, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If the parties concerned were unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them, the litigation may be supplemented by neglect within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In the case where the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice, the term “when such cause ceases to exist” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act means 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 public notice was received by public notice. In ordinary cases, it means only when the defendant reads the records of the relevant case or received a new authentic copy of the judgment.