A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks (30 days if the reason was in a foreign country at the time when the reason ceases to exist) after it ceased to exist because it was impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy

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

In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on May 9, 2008 with Busan District Court 2008Gaso231810. The said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 25, 2008, which rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on September 2008. The fact that the Defendant received a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance on April 20, 2015 and became aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance and the delivery of the judgment by public notice, and the fact that the Defendant filed a final appeal of the instant case on April 22, 2015 is apparent on the record or obvious to the court of the first instance.

C. If so, the defendant can observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him.