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.

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” Here, “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to the reason why the party was unable to comply with the period, even though the party performed his/her duty of care generally required for conducting the litigation.

However, in a case where the original judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without fault. If the Defendant was sentenced from the beginning without knowing the continuation of a lawsuit and the Defendant became aware of such fact only after the original judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195, Nov. 10, 2005). We examine the case, and the court of first instance against the defendant, a copy of the complaint, a statement of litigation guidance, and a written reply against the defendant.

The summary table was served to the defendant's domicile but was not served as a closed door, and the night service by an execution officer was not served as an addressee's unknown, and the court of first instance thereafter rendered a decision by public notice on March 6, 2018 and served the copy, etc. of the complaint of this case by public notice, and subsequently, accepted the plaintiff's claim on August 29, 2018, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice. The defendant became aware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of the first instance by applying for perusal and reproduction of the records of this case on October 8, 2018 and came to know of the progress and result of the lawsuit of the first instance on October 19, 2018.