beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance, including the claim reduced by this Court, shall be amended as follows:
The defendant is against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him.
(2) A subsequent appeal may be filed within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist.
Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, where the first instance judgment was served by public notice, "when the reason ceases to exist" means when the defendant was not aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, it should be deemed that the defendant knew that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant read the records of the case or received a new original judgment.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). In the instant case, the Health Center and the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice against the Defendant, and continued pleadings, and subsequently rendered a judgment of the first instance court on December 28, 2017. The original of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on December 29, 2017. The fact that the original of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on December 29, 2017. The fact that the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal on March 15, 2019 is apparent in the record. According to the above fact of recognition, the Defendant could not comply with the peremptory period
Therefore, the appeal of this case is lawful, since there is no evidence to prove that the court of first instance was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice two weeks prior to the defendant filing of the appeal of this case.
2. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry of Gap 1 to 3, and 6 (including paper numbers), and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the commission of appraisal to AD by the first instance court.