1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim, succession participation, and the purport of the succession.

1. Whether the appeal is lawful after subsequent completion;

A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant received a copy of the instant complaint, the notice of the date of pleading, and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court by means of service by public notice, and did not know of the service of the judgment of the first instance court without negligence. On September 11, 2014, the Defendant was aware that the judgment of the first instance court was served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice only after being served with the notice of the decision on the seizure and collection order of the claim No. 2014TT 5083. Thus, the subsequent appeal filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.

B. Where the judgment of the first instance court was delivered by public notice, the term "when the reason ceases to exist" under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the time when the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, and further the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the defendant perused the records of the case or received the original copy of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410 delivered on October 24, 1997). However, in case where the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice and there are special circumstances to recognize the fact as a matter of course by social norms, it shall be deemed that the reason that the judgment became aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice after the elapse of time ordinarily required for identifying the

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 delivered on February 9, 199. Regarding the instant case, the Health Center and the court of first instance served the Defendant with a copy of the complaint of this case, notification of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and served with respect to the Defendant by means of public notice, and subsequently, rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 7, 2007. The original copy of the judgment of the first instance also served with the Defendant by public notice on September 19, 2007.