1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." In this context, "reasons for which the party cannot be held liable" means the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though he/she has performed the duty of due care to conduct procedural acts, even though he/she had performed the duty

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195, Nov. 10, 2005). In addition, if a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by 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 was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days in cases where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country

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 rendered by means of service by public notice, instead of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice.