물품대금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor are 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. 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, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.
In addition, the term “the date on which a 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 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 party or legal representative inspected the
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
In this case, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on January 25, 2013 after serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of date for pleading on the defendant by public notice, and proceeding proceedings for pleadings on January 25, 2013. The original of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant becomes aware of the existence of the judgment of first instance by receiving an original copy of the judgment of first instance on July 20, 2016, and submitted an appeal for subsequent completion on July 21, 2016 is clearly recorded.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant came to know of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served on July 20, 2016 through service by public notice. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.
2. Determination
A. On May 3, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the supply of ready-mixeds with the co-Defendant F of the first instance trial (hereinafter “F”) and made a decision on the cause of the claim until June 30, 2007.