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. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of damages (Seoul District Court 2014 Dayang Branch 509146, hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).
On October 21, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 21, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint of this case sent to the Defendant’s domicile by means of service by public notice.
B. On October 23, 2014, the Defendant received the authentic copy of the instant lawsuit.
C. On November 12, 2014, the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance.
[Grounds for recognition] The substantial facts in this Court and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful
A. In order for a subsequent appeal to be recognized as lawful pursuant to Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, the parties could not have complied with the peremptory period of the appeal due to a cause not attributable to them and filed an appeal within two weeks from the date on which the cause ceases to exist. In the case where the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, the date on which the cause of the above provision ceases to exist if the judgment was served by public notice means the date on which the defendant was not simply known of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and furthermore, the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known. It shall be deemed that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was served
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
In light of the above legal principles, when the Defendant received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court on October 23, 2014, it shall be deemed that the Defendant was aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance court and the fact that the judgment was delivered by service by public notice.
However, the defendant filed a subsequent appeal of this case only on November 12, 2014, where it was obvious that two weeks have elapsed since then.