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. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful, since the plaintiff intentionally avoided the service of the defendant, and was served with a collection order based on the judgment of the court of first instance.

If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall, without negligence, be deemed to have been unaware of the service of the judgment, and in such cases, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him

Here, the term “the date when 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 means of service 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. Barring any special circumstances, 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 was

(2) On August 27, 2010, the court of first instance rendered a decision of performance recommendation and delivered a certified copy thereof to the Defendant on February 24, 2006 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). On September 27, 2010, the court issued a judgment on November 25, 2010 on the following: (a) the Defendant was served at night by an execution officer due to the absence of closure on September 2, 2010; (b) the Plaintiff served the Defendant by means of service by public notice; and (c) the certified copy of the judgment was also served by public notice; (d) the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order of claims with the Defendant and the third obligor other than the Industrial Bank of Korea and issued a seizure and collection order under the Seoul Central District Court Ordinance No. 2012TTTB9273, Sept. 17, 2012.