손해배상(기)
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. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal
A. On April 2017, when the first instance court was in progress, H, the Defendant’s substantial operator of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was aware of the fact that the trial was in progress in the process of holding the Plaintiff’s father B and telephone call or giving and receiving mobile phone text messages, and thus, the instant appeal does not constitute a case where the Defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant.
B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period, even though the party performed his/her duty of care to conduct the litigation,
However, in a case where the original judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without fault. If the Defendant was sentenced from the beginning without knowing the continuation of a lawsuit and the Defendant became aware of such fact only after the original judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant.
(1) In light of the records and the purport of the entire pleadings in this case, the first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 9, 2018, and rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 11, 2018, by serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, a written guidance for litigation, and a written notice for the date of pleading on the grounds of each service by public notice. In full view of the records and the purport of the entire pleadings in this case, the first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim by public notice.