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. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

A. The defendant's assertion that the judgment of the court of first instance was conducted by service by public notice, and the defendant was unaware of the existence of the judgment. Ultimately, the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period of the appeal is a cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the appeal of this case is lawful.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if the Defendant was aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance court around September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff did not file an appeal for subsequent completion until the lapse of seven months thereafter, and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on May 9, 2016, the instant appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful as it did not comply with the peremptory period.

B. (1) Where a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, 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, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to

Here, “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 public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410, Oct. 24, 1997). However, in a case where the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was in question and there were special circumstances that could naturally be recognizable by social norms, a period of time normally required to identify the circumstances has lapsed.