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 a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. On May 14, 2012, the order of seizure and collection, based on the judgment of the first instance court of the Plaintiff’s assertion, was notified to the Defendant, who is the debtor, on or around May 14, 2012, and the notice of demand, sent by the consideration credit information (the State) that was conducted the collection procedure according to the said decision, reaches the Defendant on December 19, 2014, and around that time, the consideration credit information (the State) and the Defendant directly transmitted telephone conversations with respect to the judgment of the first instance court of this case. Thus, the appeal of this case, which was filed on April 30, 2015, which was filed by the said two weeks
B. In the absence of special circumstances, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence if the copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. The "when 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 became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, in ordinary cases where the party or legal representative was to have become aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). According to the records of this case, it can be seen that both the copy and the original copy of the judgment against the defendant were served by service by public notice.
On April 23, 2015, after the defendant received a written examination of the case on the list of defaulters from the Daegu District Court, the defendant was inspecting the records of the instant case and rendered judgment of the court of first instance.