1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from

In addition, the term “the date on which a cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall 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 or

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). As to the instant case, the Health Center and the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 25, 2006 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading on the Defendant by means of service by public notice. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice. The Defendant becomes aware of the existence of the judgment on March 30, 2015 and submitted a subsequent appeal on March 31, 2015 can be deemed to be obvious in records or obvious facts to this court.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant becomes aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice after March 30, 2015. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. On July 5, 200, the Plaintiff was running a business that supplies drinking water to public offices with the trade name "D (hereinafter "the business entity of this case")".