양수금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
1. 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” means the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though he/she performed the duty of care generally required for conducting the litigation.
However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to 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 negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the 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 term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant
(2) According to the records and arguments of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing all claims against the Defendants on January 23, 2018 after serving a copy of the complaint, a written guidance for lawsuit, and a written notice for the date of pleading on November 10, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195, Nov. 10, 2005). According to the overall purport of the records and arguments of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing all claims against the Defendants on January 23, 2018, and served the original copy on January 27, 2018, respectively to the Defendants by means of service by public notice. The Defendants, on February 9, 2018, become aware of the fact that the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice, and thereafter on February 12, 2018.
According to the above facts, the Defendants failed to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal.