The judgment of the first instance, including the claims expanded and reduced in this Court, shall be amended as follows:

The defendant.

First of all, the determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal is based on the following facts: (a) if the service of the decision was made by means of public notice service on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal; (b) the defendant was not aware of the service of the decision without fault unless there are special circumstances; and (c) in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, (d) the defendant may file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the date of the failure to comply with the peremptory period; (b) the "after the absence of a cause" refers to the time when the party or legal representative was not simply aware of the fact that the decision was made; and (c) the fact that the decision was served by means of public notice service was received by the party or legal representative, barring any special circumstances, when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the new decision by means of public notice.

In light of the overall purport of the records and changes in the records of this case, the first instance court rendered a judgment that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim on July 10, 2019 and rendered a public notice of the date of pleading on July 12, 2019, and the judgment was delivered to the Defendant by means of public notice on July 12, 2019. The Defendant received a certified copy of the seizure and collection order based on the first instance court’s judgment on October 16, 2019 and became aware that the judgment was served by public notice around that time, and that the Defendant filed an appeal of this case on October 21, 2019 prior to that time.

Thus, the defendant is not aware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case for reasons not attributable to himself.