beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. After reporting on December 18, 1984 to Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E on December 18, 1984, the Defendant resided in another domicile and did not move to the domicile falsely until now. The Defendant received the Defendant’s postal items while residing in his relative C, who is his relative at the above domicile.
In addition, after the defendant was registered as the owner of the real estate of this case, the notice of property tax payment for the real estate of this case was served at the above domicile. The defendant received the mail delivered to the above domicile, such as paying the property tax according to the property tax payment notice delivered to the above domicile.
Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court was conducted by public notice due to the defendant's reason attributable to the defendant, and it seems that the defendant was aware of the fact of filing the lawsuit of this case, which was served on the defendant's resident registration address, is unlawful.
B. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of a complaint of judgment, an original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, 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, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. The same applies even if the parties did not actually reside at the place where the resident registration was made by failing to file a prior entry report. Here, the "date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the parties did not know the fact that the judgment had been served by public notice, and further, the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known is the time when the parties or legal representatives were inspected the records of the case or received the new original copy.