1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Judgment on the legality of an appeal for subsequent completion

A. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy of the judgment, etc. were 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 was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause

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 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 of the

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

Facts of recognition

In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on December 21, 2012 with the Jeonju District Court 2012Kadan42163, the former District Court: (a) when the duplicate of the complaint sent out to the Defendant’s domicile due to the Defendant’s resident registration was unable to be served, the said court served it by public notice; (b) rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on June 27, 2013; (c) served the original copy of the first instance judgment against the Defendant by public notice; and (d) served the original copy of the first instance judgment on the Defendant by public notice; (c) the Plaintiff applied for compulsory auction on May 22, 2014 with the title of the judgment of the first instance court for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Defendant; and (d) on May 22, 2014, the said court sent the original copy of the decision to the Defendant’s domicile by means of service by mail; and (e) on September 1, 2014, however, sent it to the Defendant’s domicile.