1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

If a copy of the complaint, original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by service by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where he was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, he may file an appeal of subsequent completion within two weeks after

Here, “after a cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that a judgment was rendered by means of service by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was served by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on September 28, 201 after serving a notice of complaint, date for pleading, etc. with respect to the Defendant by public notice. The judgment also served to the Defendant by means of service by public notice. The original judgment was delivered to the Defendant on September 18, 2019. The fact that the Defendant filed the instant appeal on September 27, 2019 is clearly stated in the record.

Therefore, the Defendant could not comply with the peremptory appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant. It is recognized that around September 18, 2019, the original judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, and that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice.

Since the appeal of this case was filed within two weeks from that time, it is legitimate.

The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant had falsely moved to his domicile on the resident registration to the extent that he did not receive the documents of lawsuit, the appeal of this case should not be permitted. Thus, the defendant asserted to the purport that "the defendant had a large amount of debt, which differs from his domicile and actual domicile on the resident registration, and failed to receive all documents served against the defendant," through the appeal of this case.