beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the time the party or legal representative was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases, the parties or
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). According to the records of this case, the court of first instance is recognized that the court of first instance served the Defendant with a notice of litigation-related documents, such as a duplicate of the complaint, and the date of pleading by public notice, and declared a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on June 14, 2017, and served the original copy of the judgment by public notice to the Defendant. The Defendant perused the records of the first instance court on March 26, 2018, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of first instance on March 28, 2018.
According to the above facts, the defendant could not be able to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, because he was unable to know the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case due to a cause not attributable to himself by means of service, as the copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint of this case were served by public notice. Thus, the appeal of this case filed by the defendant within two weeks from the time of perusal of the records of the first instance court was lawful,
2. Basic facts
A. The defendant on 2007.