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. 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 was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.
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 circumstances, 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 he/she read
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)
According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant on January 14, 2015 after delivering a copy of complaint and notice of date for pleading, etc. to the defendant by public notice, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on January 14, 2015. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice on January 23, 2015. On February 25, 2015, the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of appeal of this case on the same day after perusal of the records of this case by public notice at the court of first instance on February 25, 2015. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was unaware of the delivery of the judgment of the first instance without negligence until February 25, 2015, and that the defendant was unable to observe the period for appeal due to any cause not attributable to him, and thus, the appeal of this case was lawful.
2. The basic facts No. 1, 2.