1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim, including the part expanded in the trial, is all dismissed.

1. If a copy of a 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, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant is deemed unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time of the extinguishment

Here, “after the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). In this case, following the delivery of a writ of summons to the Defendant by means of service by public notice on the complaint and the date of pleading to the Defendant, the litigation procedure was initiated, and the judgment of the first instance court in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered on July 10, 2014, and the authentic copy of the judgment is also

7. The fact that it was served on the Defendant by public notice on September 1, 201, the Defendant applied for perusal and reproduction of the records of this case to the court of first instance on September 16, 2014, and the Defendant filed the instant appeal on September 25, 2014 is obvious in the records.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant as he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the first instance without negligence. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was delivered by service by public notice when he applied for perusal and reproduction. Thus, the defendant affixed with the date of confirmation.