The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. In the first instance court’s determination as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, the Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records of the above claim attachment and collection order on January 20, 202 with the Defendant on November 26, 2014, after both copies of the complaint and the notice of the date of pleading, etc. against the Defendant were served by public notice, and the pleadings were affirmed by public notice. The original copy of the judgment of the first instance also was served on the Defendant by public notice; the Plaintiff was issued with the issuance of the order of seizure and collection on November 20, 2018 based on the original copy of the judgment of the first instance, which became final and conclusive by the judgment of the first instance; and the fact that the above claim attachment and collection order were served on the Defendant on December 18, 2018; the Defendant became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was pronounced, and thereby, the Defendant filed an appeal of this case on January 22, 2020.

In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case due to a cause not attributable to himself. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist is lawful.

Based on the judgment of the first instance court on November 20, 2018, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order under the Gwangju District Court’s 2018TTTT 7638, and accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful, inasmuch as the above seizure and collection order were served on the Defendant on December 18, 2018.

The Defendant applied for perusal and duplication of the records of this case for the first time on January 20, 2020, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant had perused or received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance prior to that time.

The circumstance that the defendant was served with a seizure and collection order is beyond the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance exists at the time of the above service, and the original copy of the judgment is also carried out by service by public notice.