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
purport.
Reasons
1. If a copy of a written complaint for determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion and the original copy of the judgment were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist because it falls under a case where the peremptory term cannot be complied with due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or legal representative was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of
(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 June 25, 2015 after serving the Defendant a copy of the complaint, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice. The original copy of the judgment also was served on the Defendant by public notice on July 1, 2015. The fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on May 13, 2015, knowing that the first instance judgment was rendered late, is apparent in the record, and the submission of the Plaintiff evidence alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant perused the records of the instant case or received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on or before May 13, 2015, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant, without negligence, was unaware of the delivery of the judgment of the court of first instance and was unable to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him. Therefore, the appeal of this case is lawful.
2. Review of the evidence Nos. 1 through 18 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim by the Plaintiff is as follows.