2. The plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor are against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the judgment of the court of first instance that received a claim attachment and collection order against the Defendant’s deposit claim (Seoul District Court 201TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT) and subsequently received part of dividends in accordance with the above claim attachment and collection order in the case of the distribution procedure of the Ulsan District Court AJTTTTTTTA. Since the Defendant was served with the notice of the date of distribution of the above distribution procedure case on November 4, 201, and became aware that the judgment of the first instance court was rendered at that time, the instant appeal

B. Determination 1) If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, 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) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "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, and in ordinary cases, 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 original copy of the judgment was perused by public notice or when the original copy of the judgment was received by public notice, barring any special circumstance. 2) The court of first instance rendered a prior appeal against the defendant through service by public notice, notice, etc. on the date of pleading, notice, etc., and then the defendant rendered the judgment to the defendant.