약속어음판결금
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. In the case of an appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal of this case (ex officio determination), the reason for the subsequent completion must be proved unless the existence of the appeal is publicly known or obvious to the court. Thus, a person who files an appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal shall assert and prove that he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period for the appeal due to any cause not attributable to himself/herself, and that he/she filed an appeal which has been negligent within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist, and the court shall ex officio examine even if it falls under the requirements for the lawsuit.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67141, May 27, 2005). The Defendant asserts that on December 11, 2013, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the collection on December 24, 2012, with the knowledge that the judgment of the first instance was pronounced, by inspecting the records of seizure and collection order (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2013TTTTT5819).
On October 11, 2002, the court of first instance: (a) filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant; (b) on November 8, 2002, the court of first instance sent a copy of the written complaint and a written guidance for lawsuit to the Defendant, a domicile recorded in the written complaint, to the Defendant on November 8, 2002; (c) on December 11, 2002, the court of first instance sent a notice of the date of pronouncement of pleadings to the said domicile; (d) on December 11, 2002, the court of first instance sent the notice of the date of pronouncement of pleadings to the said domicile; and (e) on January 15, 2003, the original copy of the judgment to the said domicile was sent to the said domicile (a service by publication is impossible); and (d) the Defendant’s domicile is the same as the address indicated in the resident registration certificate issued on December 21, 199; and (v) the Defendant submitted the record to the Defendant on December 23, 2013.
According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant has received all the judgment of the first instance court of this case at his domicile, etc., and therefore, the appeal of the subsequent completion of the appeal of this case is unlawful since the appeal
The defendant does not have any relation D.