beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. If a copy of a complaint regarding the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, and the original copy, etc. of the judgment were served 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 was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases
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 rendered 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. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall 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
(2) On January 10, 2013, Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), was issued the authentic copy of the first instance judgment on September 1, 2016, and the Defendants filed the instant appeal on September 13, 2016, on the following grounds: (a) the health department, the first instance court, served each notice of the complaint and the date for pleading against the Defendants by public notice; and (b) rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on October 16, 2012; and (c) served the authentic copy of the judgment to the Defendants by public notice; (b) the Defendant C, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), was changed to “B Company E” on October 19, 2010; and (c) the Defendants filed the instant appeal on September 13, 2016.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants did not appear to have served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on September 1, 2016 by means of service by public notice.
Therefore, the defendants are peremptory reasons for not being responsible.