1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If 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, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” means the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though he/she performed the duty of care generally required for conducting the litigation.

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to 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 negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the 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 term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant

(2) According to the records of this case, the court of first instance may recognize the fact that the defendant filed the appeal of this case on August 30, 2019, within two weeks from the issuance of the original copy of the judgment, and the defendant filed the appeal of this case on August 30, 2019, after the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on June 5, 2008. The original copy of the judgment on June 19, 2008.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal was due to a cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the appeal of this case is a procedural act.