1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. If a copy of the 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, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal 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 rendered 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. Thus, barring any 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 only when he/she

(See) The court of first instance rendered a judgment that partially accepted a claim against the Defendant on February 13, 2019, by serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date for pleading by public notice, on January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7504, 75051). On February 13, 2019, the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant on February 16, 2019 by means of service by public notice; the Defendant was aware of the fact that the original copy of the judgment issued by the first instance court on March 14, 2019 was served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice; and the Defendant was also aware of the fact that the final appeal was submitted on March 23, 2019.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from the time the cause ceases to exist. Thus, the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. The Defendant becomes aware of the Plaintiff, who was an employee of the business partner, while operating the four-day shop, around 2014, at the house established by the Defendant from around 2015.