The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks (30 days if the reason was in a foreign country at the time when the reason ceases to exist) after it ceased to exist because it was impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should 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 inspected the records of the case or received the original copy

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

In the instant case, on February 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on February 22, 2018 as Suwon District Court Branch Branching 2018da604724, and the said court was unable to serve a duplicate of the complaint, etc., and proceeded with pleadings by serving it by means of service by public notice. On November 8, 2018, the lower court rendered a favorable judgment on the Plaintiff; the original copy of the first instance judgment against the Defendant was served by means of service by public notice; the Defendant became aware that the existence of the judgment of the first instance court and its judgment was served by public notice upon the issuance of a certified copy of the judgment on August 30, 2019; the Defendant was aware that the instant appeal was served by public notice; the Defendant’s filing of the instant appeal on September 3, 2019 is obvious or obvious in the record of the instant case;

C. Therefore, the defendant could not observe the peremptory appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice.