1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment regarding the legitimacy of the appeal of this case 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 after such cause ceases to exist.

The term "after the cause has ceased 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, instead of simply knowing the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013). In this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on January 7, 2014 by serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant as the Defendant’s corporate domicile, rather than “Ycheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul,” the Plaintiff’s corporate domicile, which is the Defendant’s corporate domicile recorded in the Plaintiff’s complaint, and served the Defendant’s representative director D’s address at the time of the Plaintiff’s application for correction of the address, and served the Defendant’s representative director D’s address at the time of the Defendant’s application for correction of the address, but it was impossible to serve the Defendant as a closed text without the consent of the court of first instance. Accordingly, the court of first instance did not present a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and the date of pleading by means of service at the Defendant’s representative director’s address and the original copy of the judgment also served by public notice at the address, and became effective as the Defendant’s judgment against the Defendant’s first instance.