The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

Of the total costs of litigation.

1. As to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

A. In a case where the original copy, etc. of a complaint of related legal principles was served by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.

Here, the term “when a cause ceases to exist” 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 judgment was delivered by public notice, and, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the records of the case were perused, or

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410 delivered on October 24, 1997). However, in a case where it is deemed that the defendant had knowledge of the fact that the judgment was in question and there were special circumstances to recognize the circumstance as a matter of course by social norms, it shall be reasonable to view that the circumstance was extinguished by ratification that the judgment became aware of the fact that it was delivered by service by public notice, and that there was no reason for not responsible for it.

(Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 delivered on February 9, 1999). B.

1) On February 20, 2003, the Plaintiff transferred the credit card usage claim against the Defendant of the bank for asset-backed securitization pursuant to the Asset-Backed Securitization Act. On July 2, 2008, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit (Seoul Southern District Court 2008Gaso208573) seeking the performance of the acquisition amount against the Defendant. 2) On February 20, 2003, the first instance court (Seoul Southern District Court 2008Gaso 208573), a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, and the first date for pleading.