The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

1. Whether the appeal of this case is lawful, the plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case, which was filed after the lapse of the appeal period, is unlawful, since Cheongju-si Office C and D, a certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation, etc., are the domicile of the defendant's children E where they live. Thus, the defendant did not receive a certified copy, etc. of the decision on performance recommendation of this case, and even if the defendant's children were unable to deliver it to the defendant, it is the defendant's responsibility.

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, in the event that the document of the judgment was served by public notice, the copy of the complaint, and the original copy of the judgment, etc., and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks from

The term "after the cause has ceased to exist" refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by means of service by public notice, rather than the mere fact that the party or legal representative was not aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, 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 inspected

(1) The court of first instance rendered a judgment on October 11, 2019, following the service of litigation documents, such as a copy of the complaint and a notice of the date for pleading, by public notice, to the Defendant, and rendered a judgment on October 17, 2019 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). In this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment on October 17, 2019. The original judgment also was served on the Defendant by public notice on October 17, 2019, and the Defendant served on the Defendant by public notice around December 6, 2019.