A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment 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 observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "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 the time when the party or legal representative became 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 the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

Judgment

On April 23, 2015, the first instance court served the defendant with a copy of the complaint, notice of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and tried to accept a part of the plaintiff's claim on April 23, 2015. The judgment was served on the defendant on April 25, 2015 by means of service by public notice, and the defendant applied for perusal and duplication to the first instance court on October 5, 2015 and received the original copy of the judgment on the same day, and the fact that the defendant submitted a written appeal to the first instance court on October 6, 2015 is obvious in records.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware of the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed and that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice, and that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice only after receiving the original judgment of the court of first instance on October 5, 2015.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable.