beta
Text
1. On the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of a claim for monetary payment which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case
A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” Here, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though he/she fulfilled the duty of due care to conduct procedural acts, even though he/she fulfilled the duty
However, in a case where the original judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without fault. If the Defendant was sentenced from the beginning without knowing the continuation of a lawsuit and the Defendant became aware of such fact only after the original judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). B.
Judgment
According to the records of this case, the court of first instance may acknowledge the fact that the defendant was aware of the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court of this case on June 8, 2017 and filed an appeal of this case on June 20, 2017, by serving a duplicate of the complaint against the defendant and the notice of the date for pleading by public notice, and subsequently serving the plaintiff's claim on January 12, 2016, and served the original copy of the judgment by public notice.
Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case was filed within two weeks from the date the defendant knew that the judgment of the first instance court of this case was served by service by public notice, and subsequently completed the litigation.