1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

2. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

3. Action.

1. If a copy of a written complaint for determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, and the original copy of the judgment, etc., were served by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, unless there are special circumstances. 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 the defendant was unable to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from

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. In ordinary cases, 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 or received a new original of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006). In the instant case, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and served the pleadings. On September 25, 2009, the original judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The original judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. On June 27, 2017, the Defendant knew that the said judgment was served by public notice only after being served with a documentary evidence in the relevant lawsuit for the extension of the extinctive prescription period, and it is apparent in the record that the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of July 3, 2017, which was prior to the lapse of two weeks from the date when he knew that the said judgment was served by public notice. Thus, the Defendant’s appeal for the completion of the instant lawsuit is a legitimate appeal satisfying the requirements

2. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2002, the Plaintiff (Withdrawal) lent money to the Defendant on October 18, 2002 at the rate of 5,000,000,000 won for the first use limit, 2,000,000, interest and interest for delay, determined as 66% per annum.

B. The Plaintiff (Withdrawal) on January 12, 201.