beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful
A. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a copy of the judgment of the first instance court and the details of the case in this case to the Defendant on August 1, 2014. Since the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice on August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s appeal for subsequent completion filed on August 18, 2014 was unlawful.
B. In a case where a copy of a copy of a written complaint, an original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware 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/her and thus, he/she 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" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases where the party or legal representative
(2) According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment on April 10, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date for pleading on the Defendant by public notice on November 29, 2013. The original judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice on April 12, 2014, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on August 18, 2014 after perusal of the records of this case and issuance of the original judgment on August 4, 2014.
On the other hand, according to the statements in Gap evidence 6 and Eul evidence 2, the plaintiff is in this case.