beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. First of all, the determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal is based on the following: (a) if a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance; and (b) in such a case, the defendant may file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days in case there was a foreign country at the time when the cause ceases to exist; (c) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term “after the cause ceases to exist” refers not to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original copy of the judgment by public notice.
(2) According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim on July 9, 2008 by means of service on August 27, 2008, after serving a copy of the complaint of this case and a notice of date for pleading on the Defendant by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The court of first instance rendered a judgment that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim on July 9, 2008, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant by means of service by public notice on August 27, 2008. After being served with the Defendant on August 10, 2018, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice on the date of the examination of the case, such as the Goyang-gu District Court 2018Da10925, Jun. 10, 2018.
Thus, the defendant is not responsible for the case of this case.