beta
Text
1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the legitimacy of the 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 delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, in ordinary cases, 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 the party or legal representative perused the records of the case or received the original
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da41318, Oct. 17, 2013). B.
According to the records of this case, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant and notice of date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and tried to cite the plaintiff's claim on November 7, 2008. The original judgment was served on the defendant on November 18, 2008 by means of service by public notice, and the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive on December 2, 2008. The defendant confirmed on August 20, 2015 that the document related to compulsory execution based on the final and conclusive judgment was attached to the 303 entrance of the Gu-U.S. C building 303 on August 25, 2015, and became aware that the court inspected the records of this case with the help of the Korea Legal Aid Corporation on August 25, 2015 and was served only on September 3, 2015 by public notice by public notice.
According to the above facts, the defendant can observe the peremptory appeal period due to reasons not attributable to him.