If a duplicate of the petition of appeal and the summons on the date of pleading were served by service by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice, the appellee was unaware of the fact that the procedure of the appellate court was in progress, and barring any special circumstance, the appellee was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the appellee was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is able to complete subsequent completion within two weeks (within 30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time when the cause ceases to exist) from the date on which the cause ceases to exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da21365, May 30, 1997; 201Da102172, Apr. 13, 2012).

According to the records, the lower court: (a) served a duplicate of the petition of this case and a writ of summons of the date for pleading by public notice on September 11, 2013; (b) served the judgment by public notice; and (c) served the original copy of the judgment by public notice; and (d) was unaware of the fact that the Defendant was served by public notice; (b) around February 27, 2015, the period for filing an appeal against the lower judgment, the Plaintiff received a notice of deposit that the deposited person was deposited with the Defendant as the Defendant pursuant to the lower judgment on February 17, 2015, from the deposit officer of the Suwon District Court, around February 27, 2015, and became aware of the fact that the lower judgment was sentenced, and submitted to the lower court on March 3, 2015, within two weeks.

Thus, the defendant's appeal of this case is lawful because it is not possible for the defendant to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him.

2. Ex officio determination

The defendant was not aware of the fact that an appeal concerning this case was filed without any cause attributable to the service by public notice from the duplicate of the petition of appeal to the defendant, and under such circumstances, the date for the original deliberation without the defendant's appearance, and the defendant's right granted to the defendant as a party was infringed upon. In such a case, the provision of Article 424 (1) 4 of the Civil Procedure Act may apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the party was not duly represented by an agent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da21365, May 30, 197). In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more unlawfully.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Chief Justice Park Jong-young

Justices Kim Jae-han