매매대금등반환
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment regarding the legality of subsequent appeal were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). After a summons of the instant complaint and the date of pleading against the Defendant was served by means of service by public notice, the first instance court’s judgment was rendered on November 28, 2012, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice on December 11, 2012. The fact that the Defendant’s agent applied for perusal and duplication of the trial records to the court of first instance on September 23, 2013 is apparent in the record. Thus, the appeal of this case filed on September 30, 2013 by the Defendant’s agent for perusal and duplication of the trial records is lawful.
The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s appeal to the effect that it is unlawful, since the Defendant was aware of the fact that the instant lawsuit is in progress by filing an application for perusal and duplication of court records with the court of first instance on April 20, 2012.
On April 20, 2012, the fact that the defendant applied for perusal and duplication of the trial records is recognized as the records.