beta
Text
1. The first instance judgment, including the claims expanded and reduced in this Court, shall be amended as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a 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
1) On January 22, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant by serving a duplicate of the complaint and notice of the date for pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on January 22, 2015. The original copy of the judgment also became effective by serving the document of service by public notice. On December 15, 2016, the fact that the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of appeal of this case on December 29, 2016, which is within two weeks from the date of perusal of the records of the first instance court on December 15, 2016, is obvious or obvious to this court. 2) As to this, the plaintiff filed an appeal for subsequent completion of appeal of this case on December 29, 2016, which was issued by the court of first instance as executive title, and the defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication on December 8, 2016 in the case of the claim seizure and collection order.