1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

purport.

1. Whether the appeal is lawful;

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the litigation in his negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." The first instance court's "when the cause ceases to exist" under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act means the time when the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by public notice, but the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant perused the records of the case or received the original copy of the judgment by public notice

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 delivered on February 9, 1999). B.

On February 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and the Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd., and the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 28, 2013 (hereinafter “instant judgment”) at the end of which service by public notice was not served on the Defendant, and the said judgment was served on May 31, 2013 by public notice to the Defendant.

Since then, to Incheon District Court E, the original copy of the decision to commence compulsory auction based on the instant judgment was served on the Defendant, and F, the Defendant’s child, received it. On August 31, 2018, the Defendant received the original copy of the instant judgment and filed the instant appeal on September 5, 2018.

C. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s appeal was unlawful, since it was filed more than two weeks from the time when the cause not attributable to himself/herself ceases to exist after being served with the original ruling on compulsory auction.

However, according to the above legal principles, the parties are responsible.