beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The plaintiff's assertion on the plaintiff's main defense against the defendant's subsequent appeal that the defendant could be subject to a lawsuit or tracking from the plaintiff, and the defendant could not have the plaintiff know his/her domicile intentionally because he/she did not change his/her domicile or live in his/her domicile in order to avoid it. Thus, even though the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered by service and the defendant was ruled against the defendant due to service by public notice, it cannot be viewed as "the case where the plaintiff could not be able to observe the peremptory appeal period, which is a peremptory term, due to a cause not attributable to the appellant," and thus, the defendant's appeal is unlawful since
Judgment
If a copy of the complaint, 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, and 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 the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases
The term "after the cause has ceased to exist" refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013). In light of the evidence No. 2, according to the record No. 2, the first instance court served the Defendant with a copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint against the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and the Defendant was issued with the original copy of the judgment on April 10, 2019.