If the original copy, etc. of the judgment is served by public notice, the starting date of the period for appeal.

Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days in the case where the cause was in a foreign country at the time when the cause was terminated) after the cause ceases to exist. The term "when the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or legal representative simply knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that

Article 160(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da27922 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3074 delivered on March 10, 1992) (Gong1994Ha, 3074 delivered on December 13, 1994) Supreme Court Decision 94Da24299 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 479)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Attorney Kang In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na25628 delivered on June 28, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. are served by service by public notice, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant shall be deemed to have been unable to abide by the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and the defendant may file an appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause was in a foreign country at the time when the cause was terminated) after the cause was terminated. The term "when the cause" refers to the time when the party or legal representative is not simply known of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known is time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Da38471, Mar. 10, 1992; 94Da292494, Oct. 21, 1994; 292Da3924, Apr. 19, 19294).

According to the facts duly established by the court below and the record, although the defendant had continuously resided in the "Seoul Jung-gu ( Address omitted), which is the domicile of the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit, the defendant had been served with a copy of the complaint of this case and a writ of summons for the date of pleading by service by public notice. On March 30, 1995, the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered in favor of the plaintiff on March 30, 1995, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by service by public notice on June 31, 1995. The defendant was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit at the court of first instance on June 25, 1995.

If the facts are as above, the defendant was unable to comply with the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant's failure to know the delivery of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence. Thus, the appeal of this case filed by the defendant on June 25, 1995, which was filed on the 28th day of the same month within the appeal period of two weeks from June 25, 1995, on which the defendant knew the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered through service by public notice was lawful. The fact-finding and decision of the court below to the same purport are justifiable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to appeal due

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the real estate of this case was purchased through the plaintiff's sole investment and held in title trust to the defendant is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to litigation materials and evidential materials as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The precedents cited in the ground of appeal are neither reasonable nor appropriate in this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)