1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff and the Defendant B shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B.

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “In the event a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist if the original copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice.” Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was not aware of the delivery of the judgment without negligence. In such case, the defendant falls under a case where he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time of

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” 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 said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any other special circumstances, 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 the records of the case or received the original

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051). As to the instant case, the first instance court served the Defendants with a copy of the complaint and a written guidance of lawsuit, etc. on the grounds that the addressee is unknown, director unknown, etc., and served a copy of the complaint on the Defendants. The authentic copy of the first instance judgment was also served on May 21, 2018. Defendant B was issued with the authentic copy of the first instance judgment on May 21, 2018. The Defendants filed the instant written appeal on May 30

As such, the Defendants were unaware of the continuation of the instant lawsuit, and the judgment of the first instance is served by means of service by public notice, and thus, cannot be held liable.