1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The text of the judgment of the court of first instance is set forth.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks (30 days if the reason was in a foreign country at the time when the reason ceases to exist) after it ceased to exist because it was impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

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 delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should 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 inspected the records of the case or received the original copy

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on October 21, 2014 by Busan District Court Branching 2014Da73806, Incheon District Court. When the duplicate of the complaint sent due to the Defendant’s resident registration address was impossible to be served, the said court served the Defendant’s resident registration by means of service and served the complaint by public notice, and subsequently rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 21, 2015. In the instant lawsuit, the original copy of the judgment in the first instance against the Defendant was also served by means of service by public notice. The Defendant became aware of the existence of the judgment in the first instance trial against the Plaintiff’s defect in the claim for performance and that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice; the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant appeal on January 4, 2017, which was within two weeks thereafter, is obvious or obvious in the record or significant to the court of

C. Thus, the defendant is a peremptory term for reasons not attributable to him.