1. Of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

Judgment on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion appears to have been aware of the fact that the instant lawsuit was pending by the Defendant’s husband or his branch around December 20, 2019, and the original copy of the first instance judgment rendered on February 21, 2020, which was duly served on the Defendant’s domicile on February 26, 2020, does not constitute a case where the Defendant could not have complied with the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant’s subsequent appeal filed on April 3, 2020, which was two weeks after the delivery date of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance, is unlawful.

B. 1) Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that service on a person arrested, detained, or detained in the detention room of a prison, detention house, or national police station shall be made to the head of a prison, detention house, or national police station. As such, the warden of a prison, etc. is a kind of legal representative in the service of the re-delivery. Thus, if the service of the re-delivery is conducted without the warden of the prison, etc. and the previous domicile and temporary domicile prior to the confinement, this is null and void. Even if the court of the lawsuit knows the identification of the party or the person involved in the litigation and served the documents on the previous domicile and temporary domicile, it shall be deemed identical and shall not take effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Da349, Dec. 28, 1982; 2002Da6009, Mar. 11, 2003). As long as the delivery itself becomes null and void, the service of the documents shall not take effect even if the capital was known by other means of the previous domicile.)

① The judgment of the first instance was rendered on February 21, 2020 by the Defendant’s absence, and the original copy of the judgment was served on February 26, 2020 as the Defendant’s previous domicile.