1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 49,203,620 as well as to the plaintiff on December 2015.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. On July 18, 2017, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) as to the Defendant’s deposit claims against the Defendant’s financial institution under the Changwon District Court Seoyang Branch Branch 2017TTTT 1053 (hereinafter “instant collection order”), and the Defendant also knew of such order around July 25, 2017, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware that the first instance judgment was served by service by publication at that time, and that the instant appeal for subsequent completion filed on August 24, 2017 was unlawful.

Judgment

Unless there exist any special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term “after the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when either the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the original copy of the judgment was inspected or received by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7504, Jan. 10, 2013).