1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 21,474,441 and KRW 9,750,00 among them.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was served on May 27, 2019 on the case where the Seoul Central District Court 2019Kadan510363 (the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is the preserved claim, and the Defendant’s claim for cancellation of provisional registration against B is the subrogation claim; hereinafter “instant claim for cancellation of provisional registration”).

B is presumed to be the defendant's child. Since the defendant contacts the defendant to be served with a copy of the complaint in the above provisional registration cancellation claim case, it is reasonable to view that the defendant confirmed the existence of the judgment of the first instance.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is unlawful as it was filed on July 8, 2019 from May 27, 2019 to two weeks.

B. Determination 1) If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus, a subsequent appeal may be filed within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, “after the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).

① On August 26, 2003, the first instance court served a copy of a complaint against the Defendant, a notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and served the Plaintiff’s claim on August 26, 2003, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant by public notice, and ② around July 8, 2019, the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served on the Defendant by public notice, and that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion is recorded.