투자금반환
1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.
1. Determination on whether a subsequent appeal is lawful
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had been issued an original copy of the judgment of the first instance on May 22, 2019 and became aware of the fact of the judgment of the first instance. However, the instant subsequent appeal filed by the said two weeks thereafter is unlawful.
B. (1) In the absence of special circumstances, the defendant is not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence if the petition or the original copy of the judgment was served by service by public notice. In such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus the defendant is entitled to make an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. The "when the cause ceases to exist" means the case where the party or legal representative does not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and further, it means the case where the judgment
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da24299 delivered on December 13, 1994). (2) In this case, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant and a notice of date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and proceeded with pleadings. On January 8, 2019, the court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by public notice. On May 22, 2019, the defendant obtained the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court issued on May 22, 2019 and became aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice.
6. 5. The fact that an appeal for the completion is filed is clear in records.
According to the above facts of recognition, as long as the copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint of this case against the defendant was served by service by public notice, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant as he was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence.
Therefore, since the first day is not included in accordance with Article 157 of the Civil Code, the defendant is aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by service by public notice.