사해행위취소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
1. The legality of a subsequent appeal;
A. If a person to be served is not present at a place where the relevant legal principles are to be served, documents may be served by delivering them to his/her office worker, employee, or cohabitant who is man of mental capacity to make a reasonable judgment (Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Here, a person living together with a person who actually belongs to the same household as the person to be served is only a person living together with the same household (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 200Ma5732, Oct. 28, 2000). The circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know the sentence and service of the judgment, shall be asserted and proved by the party who intends to complete the appeal.
(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). In a case where a document of lawsuit cannot be served in a usual way while the lawsuit is pending and served by public notice was ordinarily intended, the relevant party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice, unlike the case where the first copy of the complaint was served by public notice from the delivery of the copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was initiated by public notice. Thus, if the relevant party fails to abide by the peremptory period due to an investigation of the progress of
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). B.
Facts of recognition
1) On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served as the apartment of this case, which is the Defendant’s domicile on May 13, 2016, and E received it as the Defendant’s live-in partner. Thereafter, on June 24, 2016, the notice of sentencing was served as the instant apartment, and E received it as a live-in partner. 2) On July 12, 2016, the first instance court rendered a non-litigation judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act. The original copy of the first instance judgment was also served as the instant apartment.