beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case is unlawful because the defendant lawfully served the original copy of the complaint of this case and the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance, and did not appeal during the appeal period.
The circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know the pronouncement and service of the judgment is to be asserted and proved by the party who intends to complete the appeal. Therefore, in the case of a supplementary service received by a person living together in the defendant's domicile, the defendant who intends to complete the appeal regarding the subsequent judgment shall reside in other place than the above domicile and did not live together with the recipient at that time.
for such reason, the defendant must prove that the defendant was unaware of the filing of the suit, notwithstanding the receipt of the suit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, etc.) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the records on the instant case, No. 5, and the purport of the entire facts and arguments with respect to the Defendant’s resident registration, “Mai” living together with Busan Seo-gu apartment and H (hereinafter “instant domicile”) at the time of the Defendant was served with a duplicate of the instant complaint on March 19, 2015, and “Man J” served with the original copy of the first judgment on May 15, 2015, and the Defendant submitted a subsequent appeal on November 9, 2018, respectively.
However, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7 through 10, the defendant had resided in the Si of Cheongju from the end of June 201 to did not reside in the domicile of this case at the time of Cheongju. The person who resided in the domicile of this case and received the original copy of the complaint of this case and the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance are not the defendant's parents but the plaintiff's parents who have different interests with the defendant.