1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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. 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/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." In this context, "reasons for which the party cannot be held liable" refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though he/she fulfilled the duty of care to perform the litigation generally.

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). B.

Judgment

(1) On October 23, 2015, the first instance court served the Defendant with a copy of the complaint, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and proceeded with pleadings, and rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 23, 2015, and the original copy of the judgment was also served to the Defendant by public notice at that time. The fact that the Defendant was issued the authentic copy of the first instance judgment on January 8, 2016 and filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on January 12, 2016 is apparent

According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal due to a cause not attributable to him, so the appeal of this case is lawful.

(2) The Plaintiff is not more than 131.4m2 and not more than 10m3m2, the Plaintiff’s house in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu.