2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

3...

A. The Plaintiff’s argument at the first instance court, which became impossible to serve as the Defendant’s domicile on the Defendant’s resident registration, was served by public notice. However, on April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of fraudulent act (Seoul Central District Court 2013Da30382, 2014Gahap52068, hereinafter “related litigation”) against the Defendant as indicated in attached Table 4, and filed the appellate brief containing the content that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice at the appellate court (Supreme Court 2016Da243597) of the relevant litigation. The said appellate brief was served on the Defendant’s legal representative as of October 10, 2016.

Therefore, since the defendant was aware of the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court through the defendant's legal representative at that time, the appeal of this case filed after the lapse of 30 days from that time is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) If a copy of a complaint and an 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, rather than to the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstance, barring any other 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 inspected the records of the case or received the original copy of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision