1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. If a copy of the complaint, original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of 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 was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist

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 rendered 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. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when he/she

(See) The court of first instance rendered a judgment that partially accepted a claim against the Defendant on July 12, 2016, by serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date for pleading by public notice, on January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051). The fact that the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant on July 13, 2016 by means of service by public notice, and that the Defendant received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on October 24, 2018, upon receiving an application for perusal and duplication from this court, became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice by public notice, and the fact that the subsequent appeal was filed on November 2, 2018 is significant in this court.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from the time the cause ceases to exist. Thus, the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is a fund necessary for the defendant's mother to purchase the real estate of Gyeonggi-gun C with the defendant's mother-child.