사해행위취소
1. The appeal by the defendant A shall be dismissed;
2. The part against Defendant B in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s defendant.
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. If a copy of a complaint of general legal principles, an original copy of the judgment, etc., were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and thus, he/she may file an appeal by up to two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time of
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. Barring any other special circumstances, 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 of the case or received the original
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)
Defendant A, on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal filed by Defendant A, asserts that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served by service by public notice, and that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was not served by the mother who received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance, and was unaware of the fact of the judgment of the first instance, and that he was aware of the fact of the judgment of the first instance only before December 20, 2012, the subsequent appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.
On April 8, 2004, the court of first instance served the defendant A with a copy of the complaint and other documents of lawsuit on June 14, 2004, respectively, at the time the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case, to the domicile of the defendant A, which was recorded at the time when the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case, or corrected thereafter. However, all of the documents were not served as a closed door absence, and the service was made by sending a copy of the complaint and a notice of the date of pleading on July 23, 2004 by registered mail, etc.