beta
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. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful
A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or legal representative did not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative knew of the fact that the judgment was served
(Supreme Court Decision 200Meu87 Delivered on September 5, 2000). B.
The record reveals that the court of first instance intended to serve a copy, etc. of the complaint of this case on the Defendant, but failed to serve the original copy, etc. on the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and that the Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication with the court of first instance on January 13, 2017 and received the original copy of the judgment on January 17, 2017, and received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the same day.
C. The copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint at the court of first instance was served by public notice against the Defendant. Since then, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion within 2 weeks from the receipt of the judgment of the first instance court, the appeal for subsequent completion of the case is lawful.
2. Basic facts
A. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff related to “C” in the operation of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant club”) is as follows.