1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) from the date the cause ceases to exist. Here, the "date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).

On December 27, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant by serving a duplicate of complaint, notification of date for pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and subsequently rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff on December 27, 2013. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice. On February 11, 2014, immediately before the appeal of this case was filed, the defendant served an authentic copy of the decision of seizure and collection order (Sacheon District Court Branch 2014TTTT137), which made the original copy of the judgment as the title of execution, and only after being aware of the existence of the judgment and the fact that the above judgment was served by public notice, the fact that the appeal of this case was filed on February 19, 2014, which was two weeks before the lapse of two weeks thereafter, can be recognized by means of the whole purport of pleadings. Thus, the defendant's appeal of this case.