Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant did not know the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the case where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the case where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice

(2) On February 24, 2006, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on December 17, 2014, after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice, with respect to the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The court below rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on December 17, 2014. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. On June 11, 2015, it is evident that the Defendant filed the instant appeal for subsequent completion on June 24, 2015, prior to the lapse of two weeks after being aware that the instant lawsuit

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal of the instant case is lawful by satisfying the requirements for the subsequent completion of the litigation.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Since the part of the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of provisional registration is not disputed by the defendant, the defendant is stated in the attached list of the plaintiff.