1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's successor's application for intervention are all dismissed.

2. Costs of lawsuit after an appeal is filed.

1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. The following facts are apparent in the record or are significant in this court:

1) On July 3, 2009, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the loan stated in the purport of the claim. The first instance court served a copy of the complaint, notification of the date for pleading, etc. to the Defendant by public notice, and served the Defendant on November 13, 2009, and served the Plaintiff’s winning judgment on November 13, 2009, and the original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. (ii) On December 1, 2017, the intervenor, who received the instant claim from the Plaintiff, filed an application for grant of succession to the first instance court, and received it around that time. The certified copy of the succeeding execution clause was served on the Defendant’s domicile on February 9, 2018, and received it.

3) On February 19, 2020, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment of this case. (B) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to them, they may supplement the litigation by negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist," and "where the judgment of the first instance was served by service by public notice, the time when the cause ceases to exist" under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act means not simply the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but also the time when the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the Defendant becomes aware 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. However, if it is deemed that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was made by public notice and there are special circumstances to recognize it as a matter of course under social norms, it shall be considered the circumstances.