beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of the 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, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).
In light of the above legal principles, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment on April 23, 2004 by serving a copy of the complaint against the defendant and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the "defendants") and the notice of date for pleading by public notice. On March 6, 2014, the court rendered a favorable judgment of the plaintiff on April 23, 2004. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendants by public notice. The selected C knew on March 6, 2014 that the judgment was newly received by the court and served by public notice, and that the judgment was served by public notice. The fact that the defendants filed an appeal for subsequent completion on March 11, 2014 prior to the lapse of two weeks was clearly recorded in the record. Thus, the defendants' appeal for subsequent completion of the judgment of this case is a legitimate appeal that satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of the litigation.
C. As to this, the Plaintiff: