A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was 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, he/she may file an appeal to correct it 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 rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any 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 only when he/she read

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment of the court of first instance on February 6, 2014 after delivering a copy of complaint and notice of date for pleading to the defendant by public notice, and delivered the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice on February 11, 2014, and the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on May 15, 2014 after inspecting the records of this case at the court of first instance on May 9, 2014. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was unaware of the delivery of the judgment of first instance without negligence until May 9, 2014, and that it was impossible to observe the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to himself/herself, and that the appeal of this case was lawful.

2. Facts of recognition;

(a) fathercheon-si;