beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All the plaintiff's primary claims and the conjunctive claims added at the trial.
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 served by means of service by public notice, and the pleading was proceeded on June 7, 2017, and the original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by means of service by public notice. The fact that the defendant filed an appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion of the judgment on July 24, 2017 is apparent in the record.
Therefore, the Defendant appears to have become aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was rendered only when it was around July 24, 2017 when the original copy of the judgment was issued, and the fact that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice. Furthermore, inasmuch as no evidence exists to deem that the Defendant had already been aware of the above fact from July 25, 2017 when the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment, the Defendant cannot be held liable.