1. The existence of the grounds for subsequent completion of appeal under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act is a litigation requirement, and the court shall exercise its right of explanation and make it clear if the allegations of the parties are not clear prior to the examination of the merits.

(3) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the court below did not err

(2) On December 13, 2012, the lower court recognized that the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on June 19, 2015, after serving a copy, etc. of the complaint by means of service by public notice; and that the original copy of the judgment was served to the Defendant by means of service by public notice; and that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the lawsuit was pending on February 17, 2016, which was before the lapse of two weeks since the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the said judgment was pending, and subsequently filed a subsequent appeal against the said judgment on February 17, 2016, which was before the lapse of two weeks thereafter, the instant appeal satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion and is lawful.