1. Revocation of the part against the defendant exceeding KRW 1,066,986, out of the part of the decision of the court of first instance, and that part.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s subsequent appeal is unlawful.

B. If the original copy, the 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 for the subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, 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 records

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da41318, Oct. 17, 2013).

According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on June 14, 2016 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and proceeding for pleadings on June 14, 2016. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant received the authentic copy of the judgment from the above court on July 28, 2016 after receiving a notice of compulsory execution (No. 2016No. 622) from the Gwangju District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office (No. 2016No. 622).

There is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the original judgment was delivered by public notice prior to the receipt of the said original judgment by public notice.

Thus, the defendant could not observe the peremptory appeal period due to reasons not attributable to himself.