beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserts that the subsequent appeal in this case is unlawful, as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal.
Unless there exist special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, the "after 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 when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware that the judgment was served by public notice only
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044). The first instance court rendered a judgment to the Defendant on March 27, 2018 after serving the Defendant with a copy of the complaint, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice. The fact that the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on April 5, 2018 is apparent.
In addition, in full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 9 (including the provisional number) and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff had a judgment of the first instance court, applied for a seizure and collection order against the defendant's claim for the return of deposit to the financial institution, etc. under the Sung-nam Branch of the Suwon District Court under 2018TTT 53135, and the above court accepted it on April 27, 2018, and the original copy of the decision on the seizure and collection order was delivered to the third debtor from May 2, 2018, and the defendant paid the amount prescribed by the first instance court decision on May 10, 2018 to the plaintiff first instance court, and on May 14, 2018.