1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 27, 2015 after serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and served the Defendant on May 27, 2015. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice, and the Defendant can recognize facts that he/she became aware of the fact on February 17, 2016.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, due to the defendant's failure to know the progress and result of the lawsuit in this case for reasons not attributable to himself

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from February 17, 2016, which was known that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice, was filed by the defendant by public notice, is a legitimate appeal that satisfies the requirements for the subsequent completion of litigation, as it was filed within the lawful appeal period.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is the owner of C large 273 square meters and D large 438 square meters (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

Of each of the instant lands, the building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) is located on the ground of part 14 square meters of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 11, 12, 13, 14, 14, and 106 square meters of land and the attached Form No. 6, 7, 8, 21, 20, 14, and 106 square meters of land connected in order to each of the instant items in each of the instant lands, and the building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant fence”) is located on the ground of the attached Form No. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 208 square meters of land.

[Based on the above facts, the defendant is the owner of the building and fence of this case, according to the following facts: Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4, the result of the request for appraisal of cadastral surveying by the court of first instance for the Korea Cadastral Survey Corporation, and the purport of the entire pleadings.