대여금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. If a copy of the written complaint and the original copy of the judgment regarding the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion have been 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 file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause disappeared.
Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” 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. In ordinary cases, 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 perusal of
(2) In light of the purport of the records and arguments in this case, the first instance court rendered a judgment that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on June 21, 2013 after serving a copy of the complaint, notification of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and served the Defendant by public notice on June 28, 2016. The original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on June 28, 2016. The Defendant was served with the notice of the decision to commence compulsory auction on May 9, 2016. The Plaintiff became aware of the receipt of the decision to commence compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Defendant with the original copy of the judgment as the title of execution, and the Defendant filed an appeal of this case on May 12, 2016, respectively.
According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him.
As such, the judgment of the court of first instance is the defendant.