beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if the parties concerned were unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them, it may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist." The first instance judgment "when the cause ceases to exist" under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the case where the defendant is not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was delivered by public notice is known. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant was perused the records of the case or received a new certified copy of the judgment by public notice. However, if it is deemed that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was made by public notice and there were special circumstances to recognize the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, it shall be deemed that there were no grounds to assume that the judgment became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice by public notice at the time when the ordinary required time was discovered
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 Decided February 9, 199, etc.). On December 15, 2014, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint of this case, notification of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant and served the lawsuit by means of service by public notice, and rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on December 15, 2014. The original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on December 19, 2014. The fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on April 5, 2016 is apparent in the record.
However, according to the statement No. 9-7 and No. 8, the fact that the Plaintiff’s employee B was sentenced to the Defendant by public notice after the first instance judgment was rendered on December 22, 2015.