구상금
1. The defendant's appeal 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 a subsequent appeal
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, since the Defendant served on May 4, 2016 an order for the seizure and collection of the claim No. 2016 another claim No. 1617, which was issued by the Suwon District Court, the Defendant’s judgment of the first instance court as the executive title, the ground for subsequent completion was terminated. However, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on September 2, 2016, which had to be filed by the Defendant from September 2, 2016, it is unlawful.
B. If the original copy, the 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 the subsequent completion within two weeks from the date such cause ceases
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 was
(2) In light of social norms, the court below held that the defendant was aware of the facts of the judgment at issue and there was no special circumstance to recognize the circumstances of the judgment at issue. However, in case where the defendant knew of the facts of the judgment at issue and there was a special circumstance to recognize them as a matter of course by means of social norms, it is reasonable to view that the circumstance was extinguished by ratification that the judgment became aware of the facts delivered by means of service by public notice, and that there was no reason to assume the responsibility.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 delivered on February 9, 1999, see the above legal doctrine.