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
1. Judgment on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal
A. In a case where a copy of a complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term “when the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative was simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstance, in ordinary cases, the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
Judgment
In the first instance court, a copy of the complaint of this case against the defendant and the date of pleading of this case were served by public notice, and the pleading has been proceeded on November 25, 2016, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant, after being issued the original copy of the judgment on December 21, 2016, filed an appeal after the subsequent completion of this case on December 29, 201, is obvious in the record.
Therefore, the Defendant appears to have known that the judgment of the first instance was rendered only when it was around December 21, 2016 when the original copy of the judgment was issued, and that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice. Furthermore, inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant had already been aware of the aforementioned facts two weeks before December 29, 2016 when the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment, the Defendant cannot be held liable.