1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

As the grounds for appeal following the subsequent completion of this case, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant was not responsible for failing to observe the appeal period since the copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by public notice, as the grounds for appeal by public notice on the legitimacy of subsequent completion of appeal, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was not responsible for failing to observe the appeal period. Around August 201, 201, the notice on the date for pleading of complaint and the date for pleading was sent to the Defendant, the Plaintiff had his domicile in Yong-Nam-gun, Jeonnam-gun, Gwangju around February 26, 200, and was living in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and the resident registration was cancelled ex officio due to unauthorized transfer of appeal. On May 27, 2008, Gwangju District Court Decision 2007Da3721

6. 11. In light of the fact that the above decision became final and conclusive, the Defendant intentionally avoided the receipt of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal is unlawful, since the period of appeal has expired.

If the original copy, etc. of a complaint of legal principles concerning appeal for subsequent completion, and the original copy, etc., were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, 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 term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after 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, and in ordinary cases, the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the original copy of the judgment was newly perused or received by public notice