1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint 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 to correct it 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 a judgment was rendered by means of service by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said 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 party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy

B. As to the instant case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment of the first instance on March 20, 2014 after serving a duplicate of the complaint and the notice of date for pleading, etc. to the Defendant by public notice, and subsequently, rendered a judgment of the first instance court on March 20, 2014, and the original copy

On October 30, 2014, the Defendant served a notice of the decision to specify property from the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court 2014, 876, 31 October 2014. On October 31, 2014, the Defendant became aware that the instant judgment was pronounced as a result of the search by the Supreme Court of Korea, and filed an appeal immediately on the same day.

Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant because he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence.

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks after the defendant knew that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) basic facts;