beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나98

대여금

Text

1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) and the selector shall be dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (appointed party) and the defendant.

Reasons

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. If a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of judgment were served by service 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 unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

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 special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original

(2) The court below held that the defendant was aware of the facts of the judgment in question and there were special circumstances to recognize the circumstances of the judgment as a matter of course under social norms. The court below's determination that the defendant knew of the facts of the judgment in question, and there were special circumstances to recognize the circumstances of the judgment in question, and it is reasonable to view that the facts of the judgment became aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by service by public notice, and that the reasons for not responsible have ceased to exist.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 delivered on February 9, 199). However, the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know the pronouncement and service of the judgment, ought to be asserted and proved by the parties who intend to complete the appeal.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012). B.

In this case, according to the records of this case, ① the first instance court gives notice of a copy of the complaint and the date of pleading against the Defendant (Appointed Party and Appointed Party).