beta
Text
1. From March 4, 2016 to October 12, 2016, a defendant among the judgment of the first instance, KRW 86,780,260 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.
Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any other special circumstances, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da41318, Oct. 17, 2013). B.
According to the records, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on March 24, 2016 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and subsequently proceeding for pleadings on March 24, 2016. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. On June 24, 2016, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the first instance court became aware of the fact of the decision of commencement of a compulsory auction (H) by the Incheon District Court’s judgment based on the first instance court’s judgment on June 24, 2016, which was three days before the subsequent appeal of this case, and that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on June 27, 2016, which was
C. If so, the defendant could not observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the defendant filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist, so the defendant's subsequent appeal of this case is lawful.
2. The gist of the Parties’ arguments.