1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

A. If a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” 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, 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 special circumstances, barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles, according to the records, the first instance court’s judgment that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on November 9, 2016 and the original copy of the judgment can also be acknowledged as having been served to the Defendant by public notice, after a copy of the complaint and the date of pleading against the Defendant were served by public notice in the first instance court.

Meanwhile, according to the statement No. 2-1 in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant had known, based on the judgment of the court of first instance, that the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered only on December 6, 2016, which inspected the records of the case of the Daejeon District Court 2016TTTT No. 1489 and collection order, and that the judgment was delivered by service by public notice. The above facts of recognition had already been known from December 15, 2016, which had already been filed by the defendant to file an appeal for the instant delay.