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. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. 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, the defendant 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 case where the party or legal representative does not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases, the
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the first instance court served the Defendant by means of service, such as a copy of the complaint, notification of date for pleading, etc. against the Defendant, and rendered a judgment of accepting the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on January 29, 2013, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant by means of service by public notice. On January 12, 2015, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the first instance court was served by public notice only after receiving a certified copy of the judgment upon receiving an application for perusal and duplication from this court on January 12, 2015. Since it is apparent in the record that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of January 13, 2015, the appeal of this case is legitimate appeal that satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. Basic facts 1) On January 7, 1991, the Defendant set the interest rate for arrears from the Ulsan Masan Masan Masan Madropos’ cooperative at 22% per annum, and set at 5 million won per annum (hereinafter “instant loan”).
(b).