beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
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 his/her procedural acts within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist, and if a copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint is served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant is unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such cases, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus the defendant is unable to make a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.” "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative does not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and in ordinary cases, the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the perusal of the records of the case or the original copy of the judgment was received by public notice.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da30427 delivered on August 22, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Delivered on February 24, 2006, etc.). B.
On July 14, 2018, the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered after a duplicate of the complaint of this case and the notice of the date of pleading, etc. were served on the Defendant by public notice. The original copy of the judgment of first instance was served on the Defendant by public notice, and the fact that the Defendant submitted the petition of appeal of this case to the court of first instance on August 2, 2018 is obvious in records or obvious to this court.
C. According to the evidence Nos. 4 and 1-1 of the evidence Nos. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content requesting the termination of the contract on January 12, 2018 is recognized, but such fact alone is alone, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit.