The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

1. Reviewing the record as to the legitimacy of the instant appeal, the lower court rendered a judgment on December 22, 2016, and served the original of the judgment on the Defendant’s residence, but the original of the judgment was served on January 26, 2017 through a service by public notice, following the decision by public notice, which was not served due to the absence of a closed door. The Defendant submitted the final appeal to the lower court on February 24, 2017, which was from February 10, 2017, prior to the expiration of the period for final appeal from February 10, 2017.

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed by the defendant is lawful, and it cannot be viewed differently even if the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was rendered before the service by public notice takes effect.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da52997 Decided December 14, 2007, etc.). As to the grounds of appeal on December 2, 2007

A. According to Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 165(2) of the Civil Act, even if a claim established in an order for payment falls under the short-term extinctive prescription, the period of extinctive prescription is extended to ten years (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39530, Sept. 24, 2009). Meanwhile, Article 170(1) of the Civil Act provides, “A judicial claim shall have no effect of interrupting prescription in the event of dismissal, dismissal or withdrawal of a lawsuit,” on the premise that a judicial claim becomes a cause for interrupting prescription under Article 168 of the Civil Act.” Article 170(2) of the Civil Act provides, “If a judicial claim, intervention in bankruptcy, seizure or provisional seizure or provisional disposition is made within six months in the case of the preceding paragraph, the period of prescription shall be deemed interrupted by the first judicial claim,” and where a new judicial claim, etc. is made within a certain period, the period of extinctive prescription shall be retroactively recognized as at the time of the first lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 2013632Da16167, Feb. 27, etc.