양수금
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. The summary of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion was on December 6, 1993, the Defendant borrowed 2 million won from the foreign exchange card Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “foreign exchange card”) at 18 months of maturity and 19% of interest per annum on June 27, 1995. The foreign exchange card was filed against the Defendant by filing a lawsuit against the Defendant for a loan claim with the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 95Ga68761, Jul. 13, 1998, and became final and conclusive around that time.
After that, the foreign exchange card transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff via the 3rd securitization specialized company of the Es.S., and the Plaintiff transferred the above claim to the Plaintiff’s successor on August 26, 201, and notified the transfer after transferring the above claim to the Plaintiff’s successor.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor 1,796,644 won and damages for delay.
2. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful
(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent or obvious to this Court in the records:
(1) On October 21, 2005, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the following day after serving the Defendant with a copy of the complaint, a written guide of lawsuit, etc. by public notice. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice.
The Intervenor succeeded to the Plaintiff was transferred by the Plaintiff the claim for the judgment of the first instance court against the Defendant, and on September 7, 2015, the succeeding execution clause was issued for the enforcement of compulsory execution against the Defendant. A certified copy of the said succeeding execution clause was sent to the Defendant’s domicile and was served on September 11, 2015 by the Defendant himself.
The defendant submitted a written appeal to the court of first instance on November 17, 2015.
B. (i) When the judgment of the first instance court was delivered by service by public notice, "the time when the reason ceases to exist" under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the time when the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, but further the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice is known.