beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
A. Unless there exist special circumstances, if a copy of a 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/her and 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) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the time when the party or legal representative was simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the time when the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was known is the time when the party or legal representative was received by public notice, barring any special circumstances. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da41318, Oct. 17, 2013). B.
According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment on June 17, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment on June 27, 2014 to the defendant by public notice. The defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of records with the court of first instance on January 8, 2015 and then inspected the records of this case on January 9, 2015, and there is no evidence to deem that the defendant either perused the records of this case or received the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance before January 8, 2015.
According to the above facts, the defendant could observe the appeal period due to a cause for which the service of the judgment of the court of first instance was not known without negligence until January 8, 2015, which perused the records of this case.