Residential Support 2018Gadan692 (O. 22, 2018)

The Defendant’s appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case does not constitute a case in which the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them.

The defendant's appeal of the subsequent completion of the case does not constitute a case in which the party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Article 1 of the National Tax Collection Act

Daegu District Court 2018Na317018 Revocation of Fraudulent Act

AA

BB

National Rotations

March 6, 2019

March 27, 2019

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Between the Defendant and SS, each contract for a gift of KRW 10,000,000 entered into on May 11, 2017, and the contract for a gift of KRW 100,000,000 entered into on May 15, 2017 shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 110,000,000 and shall be repaid to the plaintiff from the day after the day this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

By the day, 5% interest per annum shall be paid.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 28, 2018, and on June 4, 2018, a complaint with the Defendant himself/herself.

This service was served.

2) The Defendant did not submit a written answer within 30 days, and the court of first instance on July 20, 2018

On July 31, 2018, the notice of sentencing was sent to the defendant, but the notice was not served due to the absence of a closed document, and the service was sent to the defendant on the same day.

3) On August 22, 2018, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (a non-litigation) and the following judgment:

On August 29, 2018, when an authentic copy was sent to the Defendant but the original copy was not served due to the unknown director, service by public notice was made on September 13, 2018 and the service became effective at the time of September 13, 2018.

4) On October 12, 2018, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for subsequent completion.

[Grounds for Recognition] Cleared facts in records

B. Determination

1) According to Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may subsequently complete the procedural acts within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. "Any cause not attributable to the party" stipulated in the said provision refers to a cause for which the party is unable to comply with the period despite having been generally required to do so for conducting procedural acts. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a usual way during the process of litigation and served by service by public notice are ordinarily impossible, and where the documents of lawsuit are served by public notice during the process of litigation, the first delivery of copies of the complaint is different from the case in which the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4730, Oct. 11, 20

2) Examining the facts found in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant was lawfully served a duplicate of the instant complaint and knew the fact that the instant lawsuit was pending. In such a case, unlike the case where the first time was served by means of service by public notice and the first time was unknown as to whether the lawsuit was pending, the Defendant is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and to report it to the court if the address of the Defendant was changed. Therefore, even if the service of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court was made by public notice, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s failure to observe the period of appeal was due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant’s failure to comply with the period of service by public notice. Thus, the appeal of the instant case filed on October 12, 2018, which became effective for service by public notice of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance, was filed after the period of appeal expired, and it is unlawful as it did not meet the requirements for subsequent completion.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of the case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court to dismiss it.

this decision is rendered.