The defendant.

A. Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant did not know the service of the judgment without negligence if the copy of the complaint of related law, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than to the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).

Judgment

According to the records, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on August 28, 2019 after serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment on September 16, 2019 to the Defendant by public notice. After being served on the Defendant on June 10, 2020, the first instance court was sentenced, and the judgment became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and the Defendant filed an appeal to complete the instant appeal on June 16, 2020 prior to the lapse of two weeks from that time.

Thus, the defendant knew of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case for reasons not attributable to himself.