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. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from

In addition, the term “the date on which a cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, 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 the records or

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). As to the instant case, the Health Center and the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on June 23, 2015 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading by public notice. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the Defendant was aware of the existence of the judgment on February 11, 2015 and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on February 24, 2016 can be deemed to be obvious in records or obvious facts to this court.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant becomes aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice after February 11, 2015. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s assertion from the Defendant on July 24, 2012 does not exceed C 202 in Gwangju City.