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. The subsequent completion of the appeal in this case refers to the subsequent completion of the procedural acts in a case where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them, and the "reasons for which the parties cannot be held liable" refers to the case where the parties are unable to comply with the said period even though they had due care to do the procedural acts.

Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant may file an appeal within two weeks (30 days in the case where the cause was in a foreign country at the time when the cause was terminated) after the cause ceases to exist. The term "when the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or his legal representative simply knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or his 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 his legal representative becomes aware of the fact that

(See Supreme Court Decisions 200Meu87 Decided September 5, 200, 96Da30427 Decided August 22, 1997, and 80Da2739 Decided March 24, 1981, etc. In this case, the first instance court served all of the notice of complaint, date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the first instance court rendered a favorable judgment on August 16, 201 and served on the Defendant by public notice, and that the service of the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice, and on the Defendant’s September 27, 2014.