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.

If a copy of a written complaint, an original copy, etc. of judgment regarding the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion are served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where 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 for subsequent completion

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. In ordinary cases, barring any special circumstance, 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 or received a new original of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006). In this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on June 17, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and subsequently proceeding pleadings. The original judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The original judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant knew that the original judgment was issued on July 28, 2014 at the first instance court prior to the instant subsequent appeal, while being aware that the judgment was served by public notice, it is apparent in the record that the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal on July 30, 2014 prior to the lapse of two weeks thereafter. Thus, the Defendant’s appeal in this case is legitimate appeal satisfying the requirements for the subsequent appeal in this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 10 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff paid 40 million won to the defendant in return for hiring the plaintiff's children E to the special military service business entity operated by the defendant on Nov. 3, 2004.