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. Judgment on the plaintiff's main defense

A. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s assertion was aware that the Plaintiff was liable to the Plaintiff through an interview with the Plaintiff’s employees, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful.

B. The appeal for judgment shall be filed within two weeks from the day on which the judgment was served (main sentence of Article 396(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). In a case where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to them, the litigation by negligence may be supplemented within two weeks from the day on which such cause ceases to exist (Article 173(1) of the same Act). In this case, the term “when the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410 delivered on October 24, 1997, etc.). If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. 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 is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause not to exist.

(1) The Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7504,75051 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7504, Jul. 10, 2013). According to the records, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of indemnity amount (hereinafter “instant prior suit”) on October 27, 2004; (2) the judgment was rendered on June 29, 2005; (3) the original judgment was served by public notice; and (3) the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant prior suit on January 20, 2015; and (4) the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance also can be recognized to have been served by public notice; and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory

I would like to say.

The defendant shall make the records of this case on November 9, 2018.