1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 55,64,592 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from March 10, 2016 to December 1, 2017.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." In this context, "reasons for which the party cannot be held liable" means the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though he/she has performed the duty of due care to conduct the procedural acts, even though he/she had fulfilled the duty

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). B.

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance can recognize the fact that the defendant was served with a duplicate of the complaint against the defendant and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice and the notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim of this case on March 31, 2016, and the original copy of the judgment also served with the defendant by public notice. The defendant was served with a notice of the seizure and collection order (Ulsan District Court 2016TTTT105209) on December 5, 2016 and the defendant was aware of the fact that the court of first instance was sentenced to the judgment of this case, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on December 13,

C. Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case was served by public notice by the first instance court of this case.