보관금등반환
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. If a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal by up to two weeks after such cause ceases to exist (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at
Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)
Judgment
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 22, 2016. The first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on September 15, 2017 after serving both a copy of the complaint and a notice of date of pleading, the purport of the claim, and an application for change of the cause of the claim by public notice, etc. on the Defendant, and served the Defendant with the entire judgment rendered on September 15, 2017. The original judgment also served on the Defendant on September 16, 2017 by means of service by public notice. The Plaintiff filed an application for a request to specify the property based on the first instance judgment and served on the Defendant on April 29, 2019 (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2019Da1062), and the written decision was served on the Defendant on May 2, 2019, and the Defendant filed an application for inspection and duplication with the first instance court on May 23, 2019, and the instant appeal filed on May 27, 2019.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant applied for perusal and duplication to the first instance court on May 2019.