부당이득금반환
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal
A. In a case where a copy of a 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. In such a case, the defendant is unable to abide by the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus the defendant is entitled to make an appeal for subsequent payment within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term “when 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. Barring any other special circumstance, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
Judgment
In the first instance court, a copy of the complaint of this case against the defendant and the date for pleading of this case served by means of service by public notice, and the pleading was proceeded on October 17, 2017, and the original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by means of service by public notice. The fact that the defendant filed an appeal after being issued the original copy of the judgment on November 12, 2018 is apparent in the record.
Therefore, the Defendant appears to have become aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered only when the original copy of the judgment was issued on November 12, 2018, and the fact that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice. Furthermore, insofar as no evidence exists to deem that the Defendant had already been aware of the aforementioned fact from November 14, 2018, which filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment, the Defendant cannot be held liable.