2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Therefore, the Defendant, at the latest around May 2016, shall be deemed to have known that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice. Thus, the instant subsequent appeal filed after the lapse of two weeks is unlawful.

2. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the parties were unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. 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 parties or legal representatives are informed of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the parties or legal representatives became 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 parties or legal representatives become aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when they

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006). According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim by serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, a written guidance for lawsuit, and a written notice for the date of pleading on each service by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment on July 31, 2015 to the Defendant by means of service by public notice. The fact that the Defendant’s agent D submitted an application for perusal and duplication to the court of first instance on February 22, 2016, and that the original copy of the judgment was issued to the Defendant on May 2, 2016.