구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 19,685,578 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s incidental thereto on January 1, 2014. < Amended by Act No. 15085, May 31, 2018>
1. If a copy of the complaint, the original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case, 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 observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.
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, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any 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
(1) According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment to the Defendant on February 2, 2017, which partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the date of pleading by public notice. On February 4, 2017, the original judgment was sent to the Defendant by public notice by public notice, and the Defendant became aware of the fact that the original judgment was issued on April 10, 2017 and was served by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice. The Defendant became aware of the fact that the original judgment of the first instance was sent to the Defendant on April 10, 2017, and was served by public notice by public notice by serving the original judgment of the first instance, and that the instant appeal was filed on April 17, 2017, within two weeks thereafter.
According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to himself, so the appeal of this case is lawful by satisfying the requirements for the subsequent completion of litigation.
2. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff between the Defendant and the Defendant on February 22, 2013, and the insurance period, from February 22, 2013 to February 22, 2081, is non-dividend fluor and the KF insuranceM.