1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Paragraph 1 and 2 of the text of the judgment of the first instance.

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 may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks (30 days if the reason was in a foreign country at the time when the reason ceases to exist) after it ceased to exist because it was impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

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. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should 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 the original copy

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on February 23, 2016 as Incheon District Court Decision 2016Da207354, the said court served the Defendant’s resident registration by means of service and served the copy of the complaint on the Defendant’s resident registration and served it as a service by public notice, and subsequently, rendered a favorable judgment on June 8, 2016. In the instant lawsuit, the original copy of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant was served by means of service by public notice. On August 18, 2016, the Defendant becomes aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance court and the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice after receiving the original copy of the judgment of the Seoul Western District Court as the title of execution, and the fact that the instant appeal was filed on August 25, 2016 is apparent or obvious.