beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall be within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased B.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).
Judgment
1. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the deceased at first time but corrected the Defendant as a party with the knowledge of the deceased’s death, ② the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on December 14, 2016 by serving a notice of the date of pleading, by means of service, for correction of the Defendant’s complaint, for correction of the indication of the Defendant, for correction of the purport of the claim, for correction of the purport of the claim, and for pleading; ③ the original copy of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant was also served by service by public notice; ④ the Defendant filed a request for perusal and duplication of the records on April 6, 2017, and filed an appeal of the instant subsequent completion on April 20, 2017, which is within two weeks thereafter, is obvious or significant in the record.
C. According to the doctrine of lawsuit, the Defendant, upon filing an application for perusal and duplication of records on April 6, 2017, knew that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice.