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. 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 an application for payment order against the Defendant on June 3, 2010 under the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2010 tea2536, the said court rendered a decision to refer the payment order to the Defendant’s resident registration when the original copy of the payment order sent to his/her domicile was impossible to be served. The said court rendered a decision to refer the order to the litigation procedure when the original copy of the payment order was sent to the Defendant upon his/her resident registration, and accordingly, in a lawsuit (court No. 2010, No. 57158), the said court rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on December 24, 2010; the original copy of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant was served by public notice; and the Defendant became aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance court and the fact that the judgment was served by public notice on August 3, 2016 after receiving the original copy of the judgment on August 3, 2016.