1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. If an appeal for subsequent completion is served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days, if the ground for appeal ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time when the ground for appeal ceases to exist) after it ceases to exist because it falls under the case where it is impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause

Here, “after the 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 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. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). In this case, following the delivery of a writ of summons to the Defendant by means of service by public notice on the complaint and the date of pleading to the Defendant, the litigation procedure was underway, and the judgment of the first instance court in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered on June 26, 2014, and the authentic copy of the judgment is also

6. The fact that it was served on the Defendant by public notice on January 21, 2015, and the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion on January 21, 2015 is apparent in the record. According to the entries in the evidence No. 5, the Plaintiff filed an application for a collection and seizure order with the Daejeon District Court 2014TTTT18416 with the original of the judgment of the first instance as the title of execution. The fact that the order for the seizure and collection order of the above court on December 18, 2014 was served on the Defendant on January 26, 2015.

According to the above facts, the defendant is served with the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance on January 26, 2015 when the defendant was served with the decision of seizure and collection order, which made the original copy of the judgment as the executive title.