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 the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful
A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint of related legal principles were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant shall be deemed not to have been aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for the subsequent completion within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable
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 was
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
Judgment
In full view of the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings in this court, the court of first instance of this case rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 13, 2019 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and subsequently proceeding pleadings on August 13, 2019, and served the original copy of the judgment on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant becomes aware of the instant judgment through compulsory execution, and issued the authentic copy of the instant judgment on September 20, 2019, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on September 30, 2019.
According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period due to the failure of the judgment of the court of first instance to know the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice without negligence, and within two weeks from the date the defendant became aware of the judgment of the court of first instance.