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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On October 15, 2010, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of loans against the Defendant.

On June 10, 201, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting most of the claims of the plaintiff on June 10, 201 after two times after a copy of the complaint of this case sent to the defendant's domicile due to the defendant's resident registration was served by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice on June 15, 201.

B. Based on the original judgment of the first instance court with executory power, the Plaintiff received a decision to commence compulsory auction on the land owned by the Defendant as Gwangju District Court’s net support D, and the Defendant was served with the original copy of the decision on commencement on July 11, 2011.

C. On August 13, 2014, the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 13, a significant fact in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. In order for a subsequent appeal to be deemed lawful pursuant to Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act, the parties could not have complied with the peremptory period of the appeal due to a cause not attributable to them and filed an appeal within two weeks from the date on which the cause ceases to exist. In the case where the judgment of the first instance was served by service of public notice, the date on which the cause of the above provision ceases to exist means the date on which the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and further the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known. Thus, it shall be deemed that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant was

B. In the instant case, after the Defendant was served with a decision to commence a compulsory auction on July 11, 2011, the fact that the record of the compulsory auction case was perused and copied on October 5, 201 at this court is significant, and the Defendant is late.