어음금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s filing of the instant appeal on November 11, 2015, when he/she had known the existence of the judgment of the first instance court, even though he/she perused and copied the records of the seizure and collection order (Seoul District Court 2015TTTTTTT 51026) based on the judgment of the first instance court of this case, the Defendant filed the instant appeal on October 26, 2015.
Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant did not know of the service of the judgment without negligence if the document of the judgment was served by public notice, the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc., and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where it is impossible to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal to correct it within
The term "after the cause has ceased to exist" 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 to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the party or legal representative
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da8964, Jun. 11, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant knew of the fact that the first instance judgment was served on the public notice due to the circumstance that the Defendant intended to peruse the records of the seizure and collection order, other than the records of the instant case, was not the records of the instant case.
The subsequent appeal of this case is deemed lawful.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. In fact, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in Seoul Southern District Court 2002Kadan42272, and filed a bill payment against the Defendant on February 12, 2003, and the Defendant calculated on October 26, 2002 at the rate of 25% per annum from October 26, 2002 to the date of complete payment.