2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

However, if a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint were 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 was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist

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 special circumstance, it shall be deemed that a 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 of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005). The first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 16, 2017 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, a written guide for litigation, and a written notice of the date for pleading by public notice. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant on May 19, 2017 by means of service by public notice. On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for reconsideration in the defaulters’s list, etc. with the Daegu District Court 2019Da744 as the title of execution, and served on February 20, 2019 the Defendant’s written questioning on February 4, 2019, and the fact that the Defendant filed the instant appeal on March 4, 2019 is apparent in the record.

Therefore, it is therefore.