대여금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where a party could not observe the peremptory period due to a 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, "reasons not attributable to the party" refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the litigation, even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to do so.
In a case where the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the defendant by means of service by public notice, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence, except in special circumstances. However, if the defendant had already known the fact that the lawsuit was pending, the defendant is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, and if the defendant did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it shall not be deemed to have been negligent. However, if the defendant was sentenced without knowing the fact that the lawsuit was pending, and the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the defendant by public notice and became aware of such fact only after the judgment became final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory
(2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 26, 2010 by serving a copy of the complaint, notification of the date for pleading, etc. with respect to the Defendant by public notice on November 15, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da64215, Nov. 15, 2012). The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 26, 2010. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. On August 23, 2014, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit in question with the Gwangju District Court Decision 2014Kao6647, Jun. 667, 2014.