1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows 2.

2. The defendant is co-defendant of the first instance court.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care 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 was unable to observe the period, even though he/she had performed the duty of care generally to conduct the litigation.

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 may recognize the fact that the defendant served a duplicate of complaint against the defendant and the notice of date for pleading by public notice and served the plaintiff's claim on July 26, 2010, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice. The defendant was issued an authentic copy of the judgment on December 29, 2017 and became aware that the judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced, and that the appeal of this case was filed on December 29, 2017.

C. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal of this case was filed within two weeks from the date the Defendant became aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, and the requirements for the subsequent completion of litigation are satisfied.