대여금
1. The part against the defendant B among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.
2. Defendant.
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. 1) The court of first instance served a copy of the instant complaint on the Defendants’ resident registration, but was unable to serve as a closed door on May 9, 2018, and served an execution officer on two occasions at the said address, but was unable to serve on June 17, 2018 and October 30, 2018, by means of public notice. The court of first instance sentenced the judgment on May 14, 2019 and served the original copy to the Defendants by means of service by publication. The Defendants were issued the original copy of the judgment on June 17, 2019, and submitted the instant written appeal completion to the court of first instance on May 20, 2018. (2) On May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a text message to the Defendant C, stating that “The president would not be liable for the acquisition of the G building too.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Cleared facts, entry of evidence No. 8, purport of whole pleadings
B. On May 2018, the Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff and the first instance trial was conducted in the state of service by public notice because the Plaintiff intentionally failed to receive a duplicate of the complaint despite being aware of the Plaintiff’s existence of the filing of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, the instant appeal is unlawful as it does not constitute a case where the Plaintiff could not have complied with the peremptory period
C. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the period despite the party’s exercise of general duty to act in the course of litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844, Mar. 10, 2006). If a copy, original copy, etc. of the written complaint were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant was unaware of the delivery of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the Defendant falls under the time when the Defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant and thus, the cause ceases