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. On July 2016, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff, but was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had intentionally failed to receive the documents related to the instant lawsuit, and that the first instance judgment was served on January 17, 2017 by public notice by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Nevertheless, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal only after the lapse of two weeks from February 7, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant's subsequent appeal is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment 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 is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "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, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Unless any other special circumstance exists, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the original copy was perused by public notice or when the original copy of the judgment was received by public notice (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7504, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). The records of the first instance court affirmed the plaintiff's appeal 216.