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. If a copy of a complaint and the original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. The "after the cause ceases to exist" in this context 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 becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative
(Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006). The first instance court served the Defendant with a written notice of the complaint and the date of pleading by public notice and served it on July 16, 2015, and sentenced the first instance judgment. On July 24, 2015, the authentic copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, and the Defendant’s inspection of the first instance judgment on July 4, 2017, and the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on July 13, 2017 is apparent in the record.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, without negligence, was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it constitutes a case where the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him
Therefore, the appeal of the instant case was filed within two weeks from July 4, 2017, when the Defendant knew that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served by means of service by public notice, and was lawful by satisfying the requirements for the subsequent completion of the litigation.
On March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a collection order against the Gwangju District Court 2017TTTT 2491 on March 30, 2017.