1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The plaintiff is the return of the provisional payment to the defendant.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not receive the instant complaint from the Defendant, and the duplicate of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by public notice, and thus, is not liable for failure to observe the period of appeal. (2) The Plaintiff’s Defendant served the respective certified copies, etc. of the decision in the property name trial case and the debtor’s detention case that was proceeded after the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive. Therefore,

B. Barring special circumstances, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence if the original copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal 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 ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and further, the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known is not when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). C.

Facts of recognition

The following facts may be recognized in full view of the purport of all pleadings in each entry of evidence 1, 2, and 5-1, 2, 6-1 through 17 of the evidence 1-1, 2, and 7 of this Court:

1 The duplicate of the instant complaint was sent to the Defendant, but it became impossible to serve the instant complaint due to the absence of closure on June 22, 2012, and the Daegu District Court enforcement officer served the instant complaint on July 2, 2012.