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 the subsequent appeal
A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) from the date the cause ceases to exist. Here, the "date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstances, and it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on July 12, 2013 by serving a copy of the complaint, notification of date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on July 12, 2013, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. On March 4, 2014, the Defendant was aware that the judgment was served by public notice only when inspected the records of the instant case, and on March 4, 2014, before the lapse of two weeks, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case on March 4, 2014. Thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case is lawful appeal satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of the procedural acts.
C. As to this, the Plaintiff’s three credit information company received a request from the Plaintiff for collection.