beta
Text
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
Reasons
1. If the original copy of a written complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. are served by the method of public notice as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the fact is dismissed.
Here, “after the absence of any other reason” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by means of public notice, rather than the mere fact that the party or legal representative was served, and, barring any other special circumstance, the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by means of public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new authentic copy of the judgment.
In light of the overall purport of the records and arguments in this case, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on July 16, 2020 after serving a copy of the complaint, notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the defendant by public announcement. The judgment was served on the defendant on July 18, 2020. After receiving the original copy of the judgment on September 1, 2020, the defendant became aware of the fact that the court of the first instance and the judgment was served on the defendant by means of public announcement after receiving the original copy of the judgment on September 1, 2020. The appeal in this case filed on September 1, 2020 before the lapse of two weeks is lawful.
2. Basic facts
A. On May 21, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for real estate owned by the Plaintiff with D and one other (hereinafter “Buyers”) as a broker by Defendant and C, and received KRW 10 million as down payment and intermediate payment.
(b).