beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe 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. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" "after 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 when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).
In light of the above legal principles, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notification of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice and rendered a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on April 1, 2014, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice. On May 13, 2014, the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on May 27, 2014, prior to the lapse of two weeks from the time when he knew that the judgment was served by public notice due to the execution of the plaintiff's corporeal movables on May 13, 2014. Thus, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion of the lawsuit in this case is a lawful appeal satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.
2. According to the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-2 and 22 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a company operating food and processed food wholesale and retail business, and the defendant is called "B".