beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.”
The "reasons for which the parties cannot be held responsible" refers to the reasons why the parties could not observe the period even though they fulfilled their duty of care to conduct litigation.
However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served on the party by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and if the party was sentenced from the beginning without knowing the continuation of the lawsuit and the party became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served on the party by public notice and became final and conclusive, barring any special circumstance, the failure of the party to comply with the peremptory period for filing an appeal by public notice
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.) In addition, service is, in principle, at the “place of service” such as the address, domicile, place of business, office, etc. of a person to be served with a service as prescribed by Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. If the person to be served is unable to appear at the place of service, service may be made by means of a supplementary service as a clerk, an employee, or a person living together with the person to be served with the mental capacity to make reasonable judgment; as long as the document to be served is delivered to the person living together with the person to be served and the person living together with the mental capacity to make reasonable judgment, service shall be effective even if the person to be served was actually unaware of the contents
In this case, there is an intelligence to distinguish the company from the company.