beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the ancillary claim added by this court are all available.
Reasons
1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful
A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint of related legal principles were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant shall be deemed not to have been aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for the subsequent completion within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable
In addition, the term “the date on which a cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative was
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
Judgment
The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 25, 2015 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and the notice of date for pleading by public notice, and proceeding proceedings for pleadings on September 25, 2015. The original of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records of proceedings on April 8, 2019, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on April 12, 2019 is apparent in records.
According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant's failure to know that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered by service by public notice without negligence. Since the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from April 8, 2019, which became aware of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is lawful.
2. Judgment as to the primary claim