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. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal
A. The facts under the recognition are recognized by the records of the instant case or are significant in this court.
1) On January 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of loans of KRW 14,222,00,00 and damages for delay thereof. (2) On January 29, 2018, the court of first instance rendered a judgment of the first instance, which fully accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on April 17, 2018, by serving the Defendant a certified copy, etc. of the said decision on performance recommendation on several occasions, but is not served on the Defendant by public notice, and served on the Defendant as a certified copy, etc. of the said decision on performance recommendation on several occasions.
The judgment was served by means of service by public notice to the defendant and became final and conclusive on May 4, 2018.
3) Meanwhile, on August 30, 2018, the Defendant issued an authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance, and applied for perusal and duplication of the records of the instant case. On November 28, 2018, the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance. (B) 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 in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” In the event the judgment of the first instance is served by service by public notice, the term “when the cause ceases to exist” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the time when the Defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and in the absence of any special circumstances, the Defendant becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the Defendant perused the records of the relevant case or received the original copy of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da417, supra.