beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is modified as follows.
The defendant is co-defendant C of the first instance trial.
Reasons
1. If a copy of a complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, and the original copy of the judgment, etc., were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from
Here, the term “the date on which such cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, 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 inspected the records of the case or received a new original copy
(2) The lower court’s judgment was rendered on July 29, 2005, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on the date of pleading, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). In this case, the lower court rendered a judgment on the Defendant on July 29, 2005, and served on the Defendant by public notice on August 3, 2005, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case on February 26, 2019; the Defendant’s filing of an appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case on February 26, 2019; and the fact that the Defendant either perused the instant litigation record or was not issued
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, because he was unaware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice without negligence before filing the appeal for the subsequent completion of appeal of this case.
On October 20, 2018, the defendant seizes claims upon the plaintiff's motion.