1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. In a case where the original copy, etc. of a complaint of related legal principles was served by public notice, barring special circumstances, 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 from the date such cause ceases to exist.

Here, the term “when a cause ceases to exist” 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 judgment was delivered by public notice, and, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the records of the case were perused, or

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410 delivered on October 24, 1997). B.

Facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 2 through 9, Eul evidence 3-1 and Eul evidence 2-2.

(1) On March 19, 2015, the court of first instance filed the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

7. 14. The defendant was served on the defendant, but the defendant was not served on the director's unknown.

Upon receipt of an order to rectify the address, the Plaintiff submitted a written correction of the address on August 4, 2015 for the same month.

5. A special service (on the night service) was carried out, but was not served as a closed door absence, and the special service was again carried out on September 8, 2015, but was not served as a closed door absence.

(2) On November 26, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment on the Plaintiff on November 26, 2015 after serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and served the original copy by public notice, and served on December 1, 2015.