부당이득금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).
1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where a party could not observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. In this context, "reasons for which the party cannot be held liable" refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though the party fulfilled his/her duty of care to perform the litigation, even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to do so.
In a case where the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the defendant by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. In this case, if the defendant had already known the fact that the lawsuit was pending, the defendant is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, and if the defendant did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it shall not be deemed to have been negligent. However, unless the defendant did not know the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the defendant by public notice and became final and conclusive, barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the defendant's failure
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). According to the records of this case, the first instance court served a notice of a copy of the complaint against the defendant and the date of pleading by public notice, and declared a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim against the defendant on February 19, 2019, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case and deposited 16 million won upon filing an application for provisional seizure and provisional seizure.