beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended by this court, shall be modified as described in paragraph 2.
The defendant 54.4.
Reasons
1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s defense prior to the merits was as follows: (a) from October 21, 2015 to January 31, 2017, the Defendant intentionally avoided service on the part of the F building in Seodaemun-gu Seoul and the second floor G, and (b) filed a claim for the part of the Plaintiff’s claim extended by the Seoul Central District Court in the instant case on April 23, 2020 on the same day.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant case”) also served as “Seoul Mapo-gu H”, which is the domicile of the resident registration abstract, but was avoided two times or more and the service was avoided by intention, such as having the same address corrected three times, and having the copy of the complaint served at the latest.
As such, the Defendant is served only when it is necessary, which does not constitute a case where the Defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, and thus, the appeal of this case is unlawful.
B. (1) In a case where a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint for the instant case were served 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 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. Here, the term “after the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when either the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than to the time when the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstance, the judgment is served only when the party or his/her legal representative