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 legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. On June 20, 2014, after the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had requested repayment of debt to the Defendant by showing the judgment of the first instance court. As such, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for subsequent completion only on February 11, 2016, which was the second week thereafter, even though he was aware of “the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, and that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice.”

Therefore, the defendant's subsequent appeal is unlawful.

B. If a copy, original copy, etc. of the judgment was served by 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 comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

The term "after the cause has ceased 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. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment

(2) According to the records of the instant case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on October 19, 2011 and served the Defendant on October 27, 201, by means of service, after delivering the duplicate, etc. of the instant complaint to the Defendant’s domicile. In light of the records of the instant case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on October 19, 201, and served the Defendant with the certified copy of the judgment on October 27, 2011. The Plaintiff received a decision to specify property against the Defendant on December 28, 2015 based on the certified copy of the judgment of the first instance court, and the said written decision was issued on January 31, 2016.