KLAWGURU.COM

Korean Law Demystified!

Knowing About the Verdict Is Not Enough: The Appeal Clock Starts Only When You Know It Was Served by Public Notice

By ,

A defendant who learned that judgment had been entered against him — but did not know the judgment had been served through public notice rather than regular delivery — has won the right to file a late appeal. The Supreme Court has ruled that the two-week window for a remedial appeal begins only when the party learns both facts. Here are the key points.

Issue

Where a judgment is served by public notice and the defendant later learns of the verdict — but not specifically that public notice service was used — does the two-week window for a remedial late appeal begin to run from the moment the defendant learns of the verdict?

Background: The Remedial Late Appeal

  • Under Korean civil procedure, a party who missed the ordinary appeal deadline through no fault of their own may file a remedial late appeal (추후보완항소) within two weeks of the date the obstacle to filing was removed.
  • Public notice service (공시송달) is a substitute method of service used when the recipient’s whereabouts are unknown — notices are posted at the courthouse and deemed served after a set period, without actual delivery to the party. Defendants served by public notice often have no idea proceedings are underway.

Facts

  • A and B entered a joint venture agreement in 2018 to operate an education center in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. A invested approximately ₩73 million but claimed he received neither profit distributions nor accounting records, and sued B for approximately ₩162 million in damages.
  • Despite knowing B lived in Vietnam, A listed B’s Korean domestic address in the complaint. Both the complaint and the judgment were served by public notice. B did not appear, and a full judgment in A’s favor was entered.
  • In 2021, A sent B a photo of the first page of the judgment. B replied in English: “I already have a copy of that.”
  • In April 2023, B obtained an official copy of the judgment and filed a remedial late appeal.

Lower Court Decision

  • The appellate court dismissed B’s appeal as filed out of time. It found that when B received the photo of the judgment in December 2021 and replied that he already had a copy, he was aware of both the verdict and the fact of public notice service. The two-week window had therefore started in December 2021 and long since expired before B filed in 2023.

Supreme Court Decision

  • The Supreme Court (Civil Division 3, presiding Justice Noh Gyeong-pil) reversed the dismissal and remanded to Seoul Central District Court.
  • The court held that the two-week remedial appeal period begins not from when the party learns of the verdict, but from when the party learns that the judgment was specifically served by public notice. These are two distinct pieces of knowledge, and only the latter starts the clock.
  • On the facts, the photo A sent showed the court name, case number, parties, and the operative part of the judgment — but did not show the specific grounds for the claim or any indication that public notice service had been used.
  • From that photo alone, it cannot be concluded that B knew public notice service had been employed. The fact that B said he already had a copy of that page does not establish knowledge that the entire proceeding had been conducted through substitute service without actual notice to him.

Key Takeaways

  • For remedial late appeals in public notice cases, the two-week clock starts from the date the party learns that public notice service was used — not from the date they learn a judgment exists against them.
  • Seeing a photo of the first page of a judgment, or receiving any document that shows a verdict but does not disclose the service method, is insufficient to start the clock. The party must specifically know that public notice was the delivery mechanism.
  • This distinction matters because a party who learns of a verdict through informal means — a photograph, a message from the other side — may still have had no idea that the entire proceeding took place without any attempt at actual personal service.
  • Courts cannot infer knowledge of public notice service from knowledge of the verdict itself. The two are separate facts requiring separate evidence.

Why This Matters

This ruling provides important procedural protection for defendants who were subjected to public notice service — often because a plaintiff deliberately listed a known-defunct address to obtain a default judgment without genuine notice to the other side. The Supreme Court has made clear that such defendants are not time-barred from challenging the judgment simply because they learned of its existence through informal channels. For practitioners advising clients who discover judgments entered against them, the decision establishes that the critical evidentiary question is not when the client learned of the judgment, but when they learned it was served through public notice — and that the burden of proving that knowledge lies with the party seeking to argue the appeal is time-barred.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=225118

Leave a comment