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 rendered by means of service by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, barring any special circumstance, 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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). As to the instant case, the health department, the first instance court, served a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, and a writ of summons for pleading on the date of pleading by public notice, and served the Defendant on October 30, 2013. The judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice, and the Defendant received the authentic copy of the judgment on June 10, 2014, and the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on June 20, 2014 is acknowledged in the record.

According to the above facts, it is clear that the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion constitutes a case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and it is reasonable to view that the judgment of the first instance was delivered on June 10, 2014 by service by public notice on the date when the defendant received the original judgment. Thus, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. On December 16, 2008, the status of the parties, BG Co., Ltd., was changed to BH, Inc.;

(c).