1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant B and the following amount ordered to be paid to Defendant C.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful (Defendant C) and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent payment within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than to the time when the party or his/her legal representative was simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware that the judgment was served by public notice

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006. The first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on September 22, 2016 after delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case and the notice of date for pleading to Defendant C by means of service by public notice. The original copy of the judgment also served on Defendant C by means of service by public notice is apparent in the record. The Defendants submitted the instant petition of appeal on October 10, 2016, along with the instant petition of appeal on September 27, 2016. Since the original copy of the first instance judgment was served on Defendant B on September 27, 2016, it appears that Defendant C also became aware of the fact of the first instance judgment and the fact that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice.

Thus, Defendant C was unable to comply with the peremptory appeal period due to Defendant C’s failure to know the progress and result of the instant lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself.

As such, from September 27, 2016, Defendant C becomes aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice.