1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing part of the Plaintiff’s claim on December 29, 2014 after delivering a copy of the complaint of this case against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading by public notice. The original copy of the judgment also was served on the Defendant by public notice. After receiving text messages on transaction restriction from Han Bank and National Bank on June 20, 2017, the Defendant obtained an original copy of the judgment of the first instance court on May 27, 2017 and obtained the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on May 27, 2017.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, due to the defendant's failure to know the progress and result of the lawsuit in this case for reasons not attributable to himself

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed within 2 weeks from June 27, 2017, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice was served by public notice, is a legitimate appeal that satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts, as the appeal of this case was filed within the lawful appeal period.

On May 24, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a notice of demanding the payment of winning amount to the Defendant’s domicile by clarifying the number and name of the court of first instance. On May 25, 2017, the following day, the Defendant’s father C, residing together with the Defendant, received the said notice. On June 25, 2017, the Defendant, at the latest, knew of the fact that the first instance court judgment was served by service by public notice, claiming that the instant appeal is unlawful.

However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the above notice was delivered to the Defendant solely on the ground that the Defendant’s father C received the above notice, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Defendant knew of the fact that the first instance judgment was delivered to the Defendant on June 2017 by means of service by public notice.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's above argument.