1. The first instance judgment, including a principal claim that was reduced in this Court and a counterclaim claim that was filed in this Court.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and 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, he/she may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

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 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 a new original of the judgment.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).

The first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on November 14, 2008 after both a written notice of complaint, a copy of complaint and a date of pleading against the defendant were served by public notice, and on November 26, 2008, the original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant was issued the original copy of the first instance judgment on November 27, 2018, and the fact that the defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on December 3, 2018, which was before the lapse of two weeks, is apparent in the record. Thus, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) is a company that imports and sells handbags, etc. in the U.S., Germany, and France, and the Plaintiff A is the actual manager of the said company.

B. With H residing in the United States, the Plaintiff Company D. D. from the “E Company, a corporation of California, the State of California” (hereinafter “E Company”).