양수금
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. If a copy of a complaint, original copy, etc. of judgment regarding the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist
The "date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, and further the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice is known.
In ordinary cases, only when a party or legal representative peruses the records of the case or receives a new original of the judgment, it shall be deemed that he/she became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006). As to the instant case, the first instance judgment was rendered on June 21, 2016 after a notice of a complaint, the date of pleading, etc. was served on the Defendant by public notice. The original copy of the first instance judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice; the Defendant received text messages from E Co., Ltd. that the Plaintiff seized the Defendant’s insurance on February 20, 2019, and became aware of the fact of the first instance judgment after becoming aware of the fact of the first instance judgment.
3. 5. The fact that the appellate brief of this case was submitted to the court of first instance is apparent in the record.
According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to the failure of the court of first instance to know that the judgment was delivered by public notice without negligence, and thus the defendant could not be responsible for such failure.
Since the court of first instance filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from the time it became aware that the judgment was served by public notice, the appeal of this case is lawful.
2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. The plaintiff is the defendant.