투자금반환 등 청구의 소
The subsequent appeal of this case is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.
1. Where the judgment of the first instance court on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case was served by public notice service, "the date of the first instance court's failure to have the reason" under Article 173 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act means the time when the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was not simply known, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice service was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the records of this case were perused or the original judgment was received by the defendant.
It should be viewed (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410 delivered on October 24, 1997). However, there was a special circumstance that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was rendered, and that there was a special circumstance that is naturally recognizable in light of social norms.
Where it is deemed that the judgment became aware of the fact that it was delivered by means of public notice when the ordinary time required to inquire about the circumstances has elapsed, it shall be confirmed that the reason for not responsible ceases to exist.
Considering the above legal principles, it is reasonable to see that the defendant is issued a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance on January 17, 2019, which is the date following the sentence of the first instance court. The certified copy of the judgment of the first instance on January 17, 2019, the court of first instance served the certified copy of the judgment of the first instance on January 17, 2019 and became effective at the time of January 18, 2019, and the defendant filed an appeal for the completion of the second instance on September 11, 2020. According to the above acknowledged facts, it is obvious that the court of first instance had known or could have known the fact that the defendant had been naturally served on the means of public notice of the first instance court on January 17, 2019. The defendant filed an appeal for the completion of the first instance on September 11, 2020.
Therefore, the appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case was filed later than two weeks from that.