물품대금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. If a copy of a written complaint for determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion and the original copy of the judgment were 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 is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist because it falls under a case where the peremptory term cannot be complied with due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or legal representative did not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware
(1) The court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment on January 18, 2011 by serving a copy of the complaint, notification of the date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and rendering a favorable judgment on the Defendant on January 31, 201, according to the overall purport of the records and arguments in the instant case, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 201). The original judgment was served on the Defendant on January 31, 201 by service by public notice. The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the first instance judgment was served on the Plaintiff only after receiving the last notification of compulsory execution from the Plaintiff on around 2016, and submitted an appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on March 7, 2016, which is within two weeks thereafter.
Thus, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the failure of the court of first instance to know the fact that the judgment was delivered without negligence. Thus, the defendant was informed of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered by public notice.