양수금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Intervenor’s succeeding intervenor is against the Defendant.
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. If a copy, 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 may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks (30 days if the reason was in a foreign country at the time when the reason ceases to exist) after it ceased to exist because it was impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.
Here, “after the cause ceases to exist” 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 became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044 Decided January 10, 2013, etc.). B.
In this case, following the service of a complaint and a writ of summons against the defendant by public notice on the date of pleading, the litigation procedure was initiated on June 21, 2010, and the original copy of the judgment was also delivered to the defendant by public notice on June 26, 2010 of the same year. The defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on July 7, 2015, and the plaintiff filed an application for grant of grant of succession to the judgment of the court of first instance with the court of first instance on June 12, 2015, and on June 19, 2015, the plaintiff filed an application for grant of succession to the judgment of the court of first instance on June 19, 2015, and the defendant was served with a certified copy of the succeeding execution clause delivered by the court of first instance on July 1, 2015.
According to these facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was delivered by public notice only after July 1, 2015.
Therefore, the defendant's negligence.