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. We examine, ex officio, whether the appeal of this case was lawful or not, ex officio, as to the legality of the appeal of this case.
Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant did not know the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant was 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 case where the party or his legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the case where the party or his legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or his legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served
(2) According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 29, 2018, after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading by public notice, on February 24, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). However, according to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on August 29, 2018. The original of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant received the original copy of the judgment on February 11, 2019, and filed the appeal
According to the above facts, the defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the case before two weeks have elapsed since he knew that the judgment of the first instance court was rendered and that the judgment was served by public notice was served by public notice. Thus, the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of the case is lawful by satisfying the requirements for the subsequent completion of the litigation.
2. Judgment on the merits
(a) Co., Ltd. 1 of the basic facts;