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. We examine, ex officio, whether the appeal of this case was lawful.

Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant did not know the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term 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. Here, "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the case where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the case where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Unless there are other 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

(2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on March 13, 2019, after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading by public notice, on February 24, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). However, according to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on March 13, 2019. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. On May 25, 2019, the Defendant received a photograph taken by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff as a cell phone text message, and recognized the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion

According to the above facts, the defendant filed a subsequent appeal of this case before two weeks have elapsed since he knew the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was rendered and that the judgment was served by public notice was served by public notice. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal of this case satisfies the requirements for the subsequent completion of litigation.