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. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
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. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.
In addition, the term “the date on which a cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, 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 inspected the
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
In this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 14, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and served the pleadings on May 14, 2014. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice; thereafter, on September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the claim with the Daegu District Court 2014TTTTT14162 by designating the Defendant as the garnishee, the National Bank, etc. as the garnishee; and on September 22, 2014, the decision was issued and delivered to the Defendant on December 5, 2014; and the Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records with the court of first instance on the same date, and then filed an application for perusal of the records with the court of first instance on December 9, 2014.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant shall reach on December 5, 2014, and the judgment of the first instance court shall be made by means of service by public notice.