양수금등
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. On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) sought the Defendant’s workplace to recover the claim; and (b) was indicted for non-compliance with the order to withdraw the claim; (c) the Defendant was investigated by the investigative agency on April 3, 2014; and (d) became aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance court in the instant case; and (c) furthermore, the Plaintiff was served with the notice of the seizure and collection order (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014TTTT 3009, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014TT 4358) and became aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance court in the instant case on September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that filing the appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case, which was limited to two weeks, was unlawful.
Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant did not know of the service of the judgment without negligence if the document of the judgment was served by public notice, the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc., and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where it is impossible to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal to correct it within
The term "after the cause has ceased 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 to 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 circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the party or legal representative
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da8964, Jun. 11, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was served on the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge
The subsequent appeal of this case is deemed lawful.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. 1 The defendant is found to have been a corporation C. D.