매매계약취소 확인
1. The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
3. Action.
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. If the original copy, the original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and 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 the defendant is entitled to 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. Barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, 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 records
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da41318, Oct. 17, 2013). B.
According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on November 28, 2017 after serving a copy of the complaint, the date of pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and proceeding for pleadings, and rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiffs on November 28, 2017. The original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was made by inspecting the records of the first instance court on April 26, 2018, and that the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on May 9, 2018, which was before the lapse of two weeks from the defendant
C. Therefore, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the subsequent appeal of this case was filed within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist, so the defendant's subsequent appeal of this case is lawful.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff A sells to the Defendant the land indicated in paragraph 1 of the attached Table to KRW 82,350,000.