1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when either the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and further, the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known only when the party or legal representative peruses the records of the case or received the original copy of the judgment by public notice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). Regarding the instant case, the Health Center and the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on February 12, 2015 after serving a copy, etc. of the complaint against the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and the court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on February 12, 2015. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice is apparent in the record. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the Defendant was informed of the fact that the first instance judgment was pronounced by public notice, and the fact that the deposit account was seized by the bank on May 6, 2015 can be acknowledged by viewing the records of the instant case and receiving a certified copy of the judgment on

As above, insofar as a duplicate, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served on the defendant by a service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and thus, it is impossible to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself.