1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

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, 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 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

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013). B.

In light of the records on this case, the court of first instance is recognized that the service of a copy of the complaint on the Defendant’s domicile on the Defendant’s resident registration was impossible due to the addressee’s unknown whereabouts. The court of first instance, although the service by enforcement officer was conducted, became impossible to be made due to the absence of closure documents and the addressee’s absence. The court of first instance, after serving the duplicate of the complaint by public notice, announced the judgment of the court of first instance on March 6, 2018 and served the judgment on March 7, 2018. The original copy of the judgment was served by public notice on January 16, 2019, and the Defendant was issued a certified copy of the judgment on the same day by filing an application for perusal and duplication of the judgment of the first instance court on January 22, 2019.

Thus, the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to the lack of knowledge of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence. Therefore, the defendant knew that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice.