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.

1. If an appeal for subsequent completion is served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days, if the ground for appeal ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time when the ground for appeal ceases to exist) after it ceases to exist because it falls under the case where it is impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause

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 Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044). In this case, following the service of a writ of summons to the defendant by public notice on the complaint and the date of pleading by public notice, the judgment of the first instance court was rendered on December 11, 2014, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice on December 23, 2014, and the defendant filed an application for perusal of the records of this case with the court of first instance on June 12, 2015, and the fact that the defendant filed the instant appeal on June 19, 2015 is apparent in the record.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant could not observe the time of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant because he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered by service by public notice when he applied for perusal and copying. Thus, the defendant applied for perusal and copying of the records