1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

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, etc., 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 was 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 term "after the cause has ceased 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, instead of simply knowing the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013. According to the records of the instant case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on August 27, 2014 after having proceeded with the Defendant by public notice. The original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on August 28, 2014. The Defendant’s perusal of the records of the instant case on October 14, 2014 and became aware of the progress and result of the first instance trial lawsuit on October 28, 2014 is recognized.

In light of these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal is due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant. Thus, the instant appeal filed by the Defendant within two weeks from the time the Defendant became aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by service by public notice was lawful.

I would like to say.

2. Basic facts

A. The case does not exceed 'the construction machinery listed in the separate sheet, which was owned by D.