beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial room, shall be modified as follows.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, 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 (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) from the date the cause ceases to exist. Here, the "date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstances, and it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).
In the instant case, the first instance court served a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and served the pleadings on April 8, 2008, and rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on April 8, 2008, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant was aware of the fact that the said judgment was served by public notice on May 12, 2014, when he was issued a seizure and collection order based on the first instance judgment on May 12, 2014, immediately before the appeal of the instant case was filed, and the said judgment was served by public notice, and the fact that the appeal of this case was filed on May 19, 2014, when he was aware of the fact that the said judgment was served by public notice by public notice, is apparent or obvious
2. 【Recognized Facts of Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 to 12, respectively.