beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's successor's motion to intervene in the succession are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of a complaint, an original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and the defendant can subsequently complete the appeal within 2 weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist. "the date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the date on which the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the date on which the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by
(Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 delivered on February 9, 1999). B.
In full view of the facts alleged in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the court of first instance affirmed the defendant's argument by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case and the notice of the date of pleading on Oct. 8, 2013 by serving public notice, and then serving the plaintiff's claim on Oct. 8, 2013. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by serving public notice. The intervenor asserted that he received the claim against the defendant from the plaintiff, and the above case was dismissed as there was no benefit of protection of rights, on the grounds that the judgment of first instance, which was the preceding judgment on the same subject matter of lawsuit, had already existed.
Thus, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant as the same subject matter of lawsuit as the court of first instance, and submitted the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance to the court of first instance on September 16, 2015 and received it on the same day, and the defendant received it on September 13, 2018.