2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3. The defendant.

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is 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 after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "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 the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, 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

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).

Judgment

1) The record reveals: (a) Solomon Mutual Savings Bank applied for a payment order against the Defendant on May 11, 2006; (b) on September 25, 2006, the first instance court ordered the Defendant to serve a service by public notice on September 25, 2006; (c) the judgment rendered by the court of first instance on October 19, 2006 also served by public notice; and (d) the Plaintiff’s successor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on November 23, 2016 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016Da68590, hereinafter “related case”).

A. On January 26, 2016, the Defendant was served with a documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was pronounced, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on February 9, 2017, which is not more than two weeks from the Defendant.