beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was 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 may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks (30 days if the reason was in a foreign country at the time when the reason ceases to exist) after it ceased to exist because it was impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.
Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” 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 said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)
In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on March 9, 2016 with this Court No. 2016Gapo417070, the said court rendered a service by public notice when the duplicate of the complaint sent to the Defendant’s domicile on the Defendant’s resident registration was unable to be served. The court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on November 4, 2016, which rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on November 4, 2016, and the original copy of the judgment in the first instance against the Defendant was served by public notice. The Defendant becomes aware that the existence of the judgment in the instant case was served by public notice and that the judgment was served by public notice after receiving the original copy of the judgment in January 5, 2017, and on the same day, the fact that the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal in this case was obvious or obvious in the record.
C. If so, the defendant cannot observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him.