1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is KRW 2,2460,000 from the succeeding intervenor.

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, “reasons not attributable to the party” means the reasons why the party could not comply with the period, even though the party performed his/her duty of care generally required for conducting the litigation.

However, in a case where the original judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without fault. If the Defendant was sentenced from the beginning without knowing the continuation of a lawsuit and the Defendant became aware of such fact only after the original judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant.

(2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on June 11, 2019 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant by public notice, notification of the date of pleading, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195, Nov. 10, 2005). However, the fact that the Defendant received the original copy of the judgment only on July 4, 2019, and filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment in this case is apparent in the record.

Thus, the defendant's appeal of this case is legitimate since it appears that the first instance court's judgment was served by service by public notice within two weeks from the date the defendant became aware that it was served by service by public notice.

In regard to this, the plaintiff's successor is considered in light of the details of the service of the first instance trial.