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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. On August 12, 2011, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership to the instant real estate. However, as the service to the Defendant was not effected, the court of first instance rendered a ruling that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim on January 16, 201 (hereinafter “instant judgment”) after serving the Defendant a notice of the copy of the complaint and the date for pleading by public notice, and served the Defendant with the original copy of the instant judgment by public notice on January 18, 2012, and the Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the instant records on March 22, 2018, and on July 10, 2018, the fact that the first instance court submitted the instant written appeal to the court of first instance is apparent or obvious.
B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the litigation in his negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In the case of service by public notice by the court of first instance, the term “when the cause ceases to exist” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the time when the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant was
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533, Feb. 9, 199). According to the above legal principles and the above facts of recognition, the defendant applied for perusal and duplication of the records of this case on March 22, 2018 and the judgment of the court of first instance on January 16, 2012 and the judgment of the court of first instance on January 16, 201 are service by public notice.