beta
Text
1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal
A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service 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 to correct it within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.
Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” 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 said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, in ordinary cases, 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 perused the records of the case or received the original
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da41318, Oct. 17, 2013). B.
According to the records of this case, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant and the notice of date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and served as a pleading on June 18, 2015, and sentenced the court to accept the plaintiff's claim on July 1, 2015. The original copy of the judgment was served on the defendant on July 1, 2015 by public notice, and the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive on July 15, 2015. The plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order on the defendant's wage claim from the Ulsan District Court on October 23, 2015, based on the judgment of the first instance court finalized by public notice. The defendant becomes aware that the first instance court served on October 29, 2015 and served on the defendant by public notice. It can be recognized that the defendant filed an appeal after subsequent completion of the judgment of first instance on November 5, 2015.
According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the peremptory appeal period due to reasons not attributable to him.