대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
2...
1. The plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case by the defendant is unlawful since the defendant was not served with the copy of the complaint of this case on three occasions due to the domicile where the defendant actually resided, but the copy of the complaint of this case was served by public notice because it was impossible for the court of first instance to serve the copy of the complaint of this case on three occasions due to the defendant's unknown address and the absence of closure.
Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date such cause ceases
Here, the term “the date on which such cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any 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 when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original copy
(2) According to the records, the lower court’s judgment against the Defendant was rendered on July 1, 2015, after the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served by public notice. The original copy of the judgment was served by public notice on July 8, 2015. The Defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on August 18, 2015 after the Defendant filed an application for perusal of the records of this case on August 12, 2015.