beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case
A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts conducted within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” Here, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s duty of due care to perform the procedural acts, and in cases where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by means of service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant shall be deemed to have been unaware of the judgment without negligence. Unless there are special circumstances, unless the defendant was aware of the pending lawsuit and was sentenced from the beginning, and the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice and became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to abide by the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to
(3) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s determination that “the date on which the cause has ceased to exist” refers to the date on which a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the original of the judgment was served by service by public notice was served by public notice, and in the absence of special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem 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 inspected the records of the case or when the original of the judgment was received by public notice, or when the original of the judgment was received by public notice.”
(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da38471 delivered on March 10, 1992, etc.). B.
In light of the above legal principles, we examine the instant case.