1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount:

1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's appeal on the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of the trial is unlawful, since the defendant intentionally avoided the service of documents in the court of first instance with knowledge of the fact that the lawsuit pending in the court of first instance was in the partnership with the co-defendants of the first instance.

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence if it was served by means of service, such as a copy of the complaint, a copy of the complaint, and the original copy of the judgment, etc., 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

(2) The court of first instance, after receiving a complaint on November 13, 2003, has attempted to serve a copy of the complaint on several occasions on the defendant, but failed to serve on the defendant due to the addressee's unknown whereabouts or absence of closure documents. Upon receiving the plaintiff's attorney's application, the court of first instance ordered the defendant to serve a public notice on October 11, 2004, and issued the notice of date for pleading and the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice. After being served on the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the same claim against the defendant under Busan District Court Decision 2015Da37647 for the purpose of interrupting extinctive prescription, and the defendant filed the appeal of this case after being served with the copy of the complaint on June 1, 2015, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of this case was pronounced.

According to the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and only the fact that the defendant was closely related to the co-defendants of the first instance court is insufficient to reverse the above fact-finding, and the defendant is sentenced to the judgment of the first instance court.