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 original copy of a complaint and an 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 is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days where 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 becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. Thus, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served

(1) The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on January 26, 2016, after serving a copy of the complaint, notification of the date for pleading, etc. to the Defendant by public notice, on January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051). The fact that the Defendant received a certified copy of the judgment on March 23, 2016, and filed an application for perusal and reproduction of the records of the instant case with the court of first instance on March 29, 2016 is apparent in the records.

Therefore, the Defendant could not comply with the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, due to the Defendant’s failure to know the progress and result of the instant lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself, and thus, the Defendant filed within two weeks from March 23, 2016, which became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was served by means of service by public notice, upon receiving a certified copy of the judgment and requesting perusal of the records of this case