계약금
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 complaint as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal and the original 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 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 from the date such cause ceases to exist.
Here, the term “the date on which such cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was served by public notice. Barring any 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 inspected the records of the case or received a new original copy
(1) On January 10, 2013, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051). ex officio, the judgment of the first instance was rendered on December 8, 2017 after both a health care unit, a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading, etc. were served by public notice. The original judgment also was served on the Defendant by public notice on December 21, 2017. The Plaintiff received the claim attachment and collection order (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Do2047, Feb. 7, 2018) against the Defendant’s deposit claim as C, etc. based on the original judgment of the first instance court, and the above claim attachment and collection order reached the garnishee around February 7, 2018, the court below issued the original judgment on March 18, 2018.
According to the above facts, the defendant is above at the executing court.