1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. If the legality, copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint of subsequent appeal were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent appeal 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 rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, 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 records of the case

(2) On January 10, 2013, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on June 19, 2014, with the knowledge that the judgment was served by service by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 201). On September 28, 2012, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 28, 2012, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. On June 18, 2014, the first instance court prior to the filing of the appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on June 19, 2014, with the knowledge that the said judgment was served by public notice by public notice. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion of the litigation is legitimate by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of the litigation.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff acquired from C the claim of KRW 8 million, out of the lease deposit claim of KRW 10 million against the Defendant, and C notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim at that time. As such, the Defendant was the above eight million won and the Plaintiff.