beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The legality of subsequent appeal;
A. In a case where a copy of a complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term “when 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 the time when the party or legal representative was simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstance, in ordinary cases, the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
Judgment
On September 21, 2016, the first instance court served a copy of complaint, notice of date of pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and tried to win the lawsuit on September 21, 2016. The original of the judgment also served on the plaintiff by public notice and became effective as service on September 23, 2014. The defendant submitted an application for perusal and duplication to the first instance court on November 18, 2016, and received the original copy of the judgment, and the fact that the defendant filed an appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion of the case is apparent in the record.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant could not comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and that the first instance judgment was served only by means of service by public notice after inspecting the records of proceedings on November 18, 2016. The appeal of this case filed within two weeks from then, is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.
2. Matters concerning the merits.