1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 14,749.

1. If a copy of a complaint, original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant is deemed unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time of the extinguishment

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 delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). In the instant case, following the service of a writ of summons on the Defendant’s complaint and the date of pleading by public notice, the litigation was initiated on September 29, 2003, the judgment of the first instance court was rendered and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice on October 14, 2003, and the Defendant was entirely aware of the progress and result of the said lawsuit. The fact that the first instance court became aware that the judgment was served by public notice only after perusal of the records of the relevant case on August 25, 2014 (this Court Decision 2013Da53971

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant as he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence. Thus, the defendant was from two weeks from August 25, 2014, on which he knew that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered by service by public notice.