1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 9,588,00 for the defendant and its related thereto shall be annually from March 29, 2015 to February 9, 2017.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

A. If the original copy, the original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, 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/her and thus the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist

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, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the records

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da41318, Oct. 17, 2013). B.

According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on November 13, 2015 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and proceeding for pleadings on November 13, 2015. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant becomes aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered through perusal of the records of this case’s case’s District Court’s order to commence a compulsory auction (F) on December 31, 2015, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on January 8, 2016, which was before the lapse of two weeks from the Defendant.

C. If so, the defendant could not observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the defendant filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist, so the defendant's subsequent appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) the facts of recognition;