beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나1579

구상금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

Since the plaintiff's assertion on this safety defense did not comply with the period of appeal, the appeal of this case is unlawful.

Judgment

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the procedural acts in his negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." The first instance judgment "when the cause ceases to exist" under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act means the time when the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant was inspected the records of the case or received a new authentic copy of the judgment by public notice. However, if it is deemed that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was in question, and there are special circumstances as a matter of course, it is reasonable to view that the reason was extinguished by ratification that the judgment became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice by public notice at the time when the ordinary time required

(see Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533, Feb. 9, 199). According to the overall purport of each entry and pleading in the evidence Nos. 98Da43533, Feb. 9, 199, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on May 29, 2013 against the Defendant, as stated in the purport of the claim Nos. 2 and 3. The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on Oct. 1, 2013 after serving the Defendant with a copy of the complaint, notice of date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and served the Defendant on Oct. 1, 2013. The original of the judgment was served by public notice; the Defendant received the authentic copy of the first judgment on March 26, 2019; the Defendant received on April 3, 2019.