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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, 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, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "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. In ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).
Judgment
1) On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant on January 26, 2016 as Busan District Court 2016 tea866, but the above court rendered a decision to refer to the lawsuit when the original copy of the payment order sent to the Defendant’s domicile was impossible to be served due to the Defendant’s resident registration; ② the lawsuit (in Busan District Court 2016Dada29890, the above court served the Defendant with the notice by means of service on the copy of the complaint and the date for pleading; ② the court rendered a favorable decision on June 22, 2016; ③ the delivery of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance to the Defendant by service by publication; ④ the Defendant applied for inspection and duplication of the records on March 23, 2017; ⑤ the Defendant was issued a certified copy of the judgment on March 24, 2017; ⑤ the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal of this case on March 27, 2017.
C. Depending on the theory of lawsuit.