beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나200

공사대금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. If a copy of a complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal and an original copy of the judgment were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term 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 after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time either the party or legal representative is 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 by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases, the party or legal representative becomes aware

(2) According to the records, the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of all the Plaintiff on August 25, 2017 after serving the Defendant with documents related to the lawsuit, such as a copy of the complaint, by public notice, and served the original copy by public notice to the Defendant on August 25, 2017. The Defendant was not aware of the fact that the judgment of first instance was pronounced. The Defendant was issued with the original copy of the judgment of first instance on January 11, 2018 and became aware of the judgment and filed the appeal of this case on January 12, 2018. As long as the copy and the original copy of the complaint were delivered to the Defendant by public notice, the Defendant did not know of the service of the judgment without negligence, and thus, constitutes a case where the Defendant could not comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant.