물품대금 등
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The total cost of the lawsuit.
1. The Plaintiff’s subsequent appeal of this case by the Defendants prior to the merits is unlawful, since the appeal by the Defendants subsequent completion of this case exceeds the time limit for appeal as stipulated in the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal is deemed unlawful.
If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and 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 may file an appeal subsequent to subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist pursuant to
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, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any other special circumstances, 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 read the records of the case or received
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051). In contrast, the first instance court served the Defendants with the notice of the date of pleading, etc. through service by public notice, and subsequently rendered a favorable judgment on August 31, 201, and the original judgment also served on the Defendants by public notice. The fact that the Defendant filed an appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion of the instant case on July 3, 2014 is apparent or obvious to this court.
Meanwhile, in this case where the Defendants asserted that the first instance court judgment was served on June 27, 2014 by public notice and filed an appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion, the records of this case had already been perused or new before 14 days prior to the date of filing the appeal.