1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In a case where a copy of a complaint on the legitimacy of appeal and an original copy of judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant did not know 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/her, and such cause is no longer than two weeks after such cause ceases to exist (30 days if the cause was in a foreign country at the time that the cause ceases to exist).

Here, “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy of the judgment.

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on April 3, 2015 after serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case, notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the defendant by service by public notice, and rendered a favorable judgment to the plaintiff on April 3, 2015. The original judgment also served on the defendant by service by public notice. The defendant received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on October 6, 2015. The defendant filed an appeal of this case on November 13, 2015, and the defendant entered the Republic of Korea on December 17, 2014, and entered the Republic of Korea on February 13, 2015, and the defendant received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the same day.

According to the above facts, when the defendant received the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance on October 6, 2015, the defendant becomes aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered by service by public notice.

However, since the Defendant filed the instant appeal on November 13, 2015, the instant appeal is unlawful, deeming that the instant appeal was filed after the lapse of the appeal period.

2. Conclusion