1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. If the legality of an appeal for subsequent completion, a copy of a complaint, an original copy of judgment, etc., were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the reason ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to

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. 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 the party or legal representative

(2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment citing all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant on February 11, 2016, and served the Defendant by means of public notice, after serving a duplicate of the complaint and a writ of summons on the date of pleading on January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). As to the instant case, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by means of public notice only after obtaining an original copy of the judgment on March 10, 2016, and that the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment was apparent in the record, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal of this case is a lawful appeal satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a provisional contract stating that “from August 30, 2015 to August 30, 2017, Ulsan-gun C is leased KRW 30 million and KRW 800,000 per month of rent,” respectively. (2) The Plaintiff drafted a provisional contract on July 20, 2015.