beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Attached Form
Attached Form 2 shall apply to the accidents described in paragraph (1).
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of 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 was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal 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 to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).
In light of the above legal principles, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notification of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice and rendered a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on August 27, 2015, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice. On March 31, 2016, the defendant was aware that the judgment of the first instance court was served on the defendant by public notice, and it is evident in the record that the defendant filed a subsequent appeal on April 1, 2016, prior to the lapse of two weeks, with knowledge that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal of this case is a lawful appeal satisfying the requirements for the subsequent completion of litigation.
2. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a fire insurance contract with the defendant, and the defendant is located in Gyeyang-gu Seoul (the second floor, the second floor, the first floor, and the second floor; hereinafter referred to as the "the building of this case").