1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

2...

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's defense of principal safety against the defendant's incidental appeal

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant could be subject to a lawsuit or tracking from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff could not know his/her domicile by intentionally changing his/her domicile or moving his/her resident registration to his/her domicile that does not reside in order to avoid it. Thus, even though the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered by public notice and the defendant was unaware of the fact that the defendant was ruled against, it cannot be deemed to constitute "the case where the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, could not be complied with due to a cause not attributable to the appellant, was filed, and thus, the defendant's appeal

B. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of a complaint of relevant law, an original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if 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 to 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, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). C.

Facts of recognition

1. The duplicate of the complaint of this case was sent to the defendant on April 29, 2005, but the director is unknown on May 3, 2005.