대여금등
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case 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
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 February 11, 2015 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and the notice of the date for pleading by public notice, and served the Plaintiff on February 11, 2015. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant on March 17, 2015 for an explanation of property name with the Daegu District Court 2015Kao1858, and the said court served on the Defendant on March 20, 2015, a certified copy of the said ruling on March 26, 2015. The fact that the Defendant served the certified copy of the said ruling on the Defendant and submitted the written appeal for the subsequent completion of pleading on March 30, 2015 is apparent or obvious in the record.
According to the above facts, the defendant came to know that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice on March 26, 2015. Thus, within two weeks thereafter.