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. Facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be recognized by the court or by the purport of the entire pleadings:
1) On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Defendant with the Dong-gu District Court, Dong-gu District Court, 2015Guj88, and the original copy of the payment order was not served on the Defendant on the grounds that the address is unknown and the addressee is unknown. Accordingly, the instant case of application for the payment order was brought before the court of first instance for litigation on July 31, 2015. (2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on November 26, 2015 (hereinafter “the first instance judgment”) by serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of date for pleading on the Defendant by public notice, and served the original copy on the Defendant by public notice.
3) On September 5, 2016, the Defendant perused and copied the instant records, and received an authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance court. 4) The Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on December 28, 2016.
B. Determination 1) In order for a subsequent appeal under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act to be deemed lawful, the parties could not have complied with the peremptory period of the appeal due to a cause not attributable to them, and the appeal was filed within two weeks from the date on which the cause ceases to exist. In the case where the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, the term “the date on which the cause ceases to exist” means the time when the Defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was known. Thus, it should be deemed that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the Defendant perused the records of the case or received the original judgment. 2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant perused and copied the records of this case on September 5, 2016, and issued the original judgment of the first instance.