beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.25 2013나56821

구상금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant legally received from the court of first instance a copy of the decision of performance recommendation and a copy of the plaintiff's submission attached thereto from the court of first instance, and thereafter submitted a written reply to the court of first instance on April 22, 2008 to the purport that the plaintiff's claim is disputing the court of first instance. Thus, even if the original copy of the judgment was served by service of public notice, it does not constitute a case where the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to that not attributable to the defendant, and thus, the defendant's appeal of this case filed two weeks after the date of service of the judgment of first instance is unlawful as it does

B. In a case where the delivery of documents was impossible due to service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, if the original copy, copy, and original copy of the complaint were to be served by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under a case where it is impossible to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). However, in a case where the delivery of documents was made by public notice to the defendant while the documents of the first instance were lawfully served on the defendant while the documents of the complaint were served by public notice, the original copy of the complaint and the other documents of the judgment were served on the closing country. Thus, unlike the case where the defendant was unable to serve documents by public notice by public notice, it is necessary to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and examine the result thereof.