Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is inherited from the deceased G.

If a copy of a complaint of legal principles related to the determination of the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, and the original copy, etc. of the judgment, were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and 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 may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks

Here, “after a cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by means of service by public notice, rather than simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was rendered by the party or legal representative (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The following facts under the recognition of facts do not conflict between the parties or are significant in this court.

On August 21, 2019, the first instance court served the Defendant, who is the heir of the deceased G (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and the co-defendant E, F and Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant Co-Defendant of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as “C”), by serving a copy of the complaint of this case, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and subsequently declared that all of the Plaintiff’

On August 24, 2019, the original judgment was served on the defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court by public notice.

The Plaintiff seized and collected KRW 4,384,934 of the deposit claim against the deceased’s IF based on the seizure and collection order of the Seoul Central District Court 2019TTTT No. 26538, which was issued by the Plaintiff as executive title. On January 14, 2020, the Defendant became aware of the existence of the first instance judgment, which is the executive title of the above seizure and collection order.

After that, the defendant filed an appeal on January 28, 2020.

Judgment

Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the defendant could not observe the appeal period, which is a peremptory term, due to reasons not attributable to him.