근저당권말소
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
1. As to whether the appeal of this case was lawful, if a duplicate of the petition of appeal and the summons of the date of pleading was served by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice, the defendant shall be deemed to have been unaware of the fact that the plaintiff filed an appeal and the procedure of the appeal was in progress by public notice, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant may be deemed not to have been aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under a case where the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, he may make an appeal within two weeks from
(2) According to the records, the court below’s decision on July 25, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da21365, May 30, 1997; 2009Da1665, May 14, 2009). The court below’s decision on July 25, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da21365, Jul. 28, 2014; 2009Da1665, Apr. 25, 2016) was made by serving a copy of the petition of this case and a writ of summons for the date of pleading by service. The court below’s decision on the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the first instance court’s decision on July 28, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the original copy of the judgment”) also becomes effective as serving by service by public notice to the Defendant.
Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant was unable to observe the period of final appeal, which is a peremptory term, due to any cause not attributable to himself. In such a case, the Defendant subsequently supplemented the final appeal from April 25, 2016 to two weeks after having become aware of the fact that the lower judgment was served by public notice.