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. If the legality of an appeal for subsequent completion, a copy of a complaint, an original copy of judgment, etc., were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days where the reason ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time when the reason ceases to exist) after the lapse of such reason, as he/she was unable
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 delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should 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 inspected the records of the case or received the original copy
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Meu87, Sept. 5, 2000). According to the records, the first instance court rendered a judgment on March 23, 2016, when both a copy of the complaint and a writ of summons against the defendant were served by public notice and the litigation proceedings were initiated by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice on March 24, 2016. The defendant was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit. On January 25, 2018, the first instance court became aware that the judgment was served by public notice only by filing an application for perusal and duplication of the trial records with the court of first instance, and on the same day, submitted a written appeal completion at the court of first instance.
According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause for which he could not be held responsible because he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence.
Since the judgment of the court of first instance is a method of service by public notice.