구상금 및 사해행위취소
1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in the judgment shall be modified as follows:
A and the defendant are listed in the attached list.
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. The court of first instance, which tried to serve a duplicate of the complaint on the Defendant, but did not serve as a closed door, ordered service by public notice. Accordingly, the fact that the complaint against the Defendant was served by public notice, notification of the date for pleading, etc. was served by public notice; the court of first instance, upon the proceeding of pleadings, rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on July 21, 2017; the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice on July 25, 2017; the Plaintiff filed an application for an explanation of the property with the title of title as the court of first instance, with the former District Court’s Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office on September 8, 2017; and thereafter, the Defendant submitted the instant appeal to the court of first instance on September 27, 2017.
B. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of a complaint of relevant legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. Here, "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, unless there are 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 copy of the judgment by public notice (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).