1. All appeals filed by the defendant and applications filed by the succeeding intervenor for intervention by the defendant shall be dismissed;

2...

On the other hand, Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the procedural acts in his negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." In the case where the first instance judgment was served by public notice, "when such cause ceases to exist" under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the time when the defendant becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the defendant was simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, only when the defendant read the records of the case or received the original judgment, it shall be deemed that he became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533, Feb. 9, 199). According to the records, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint, notification of the date for pleading, etc. to the defendant (appointed) by means of service by public notice, and proceeded with pleadings. On September 23, 2011, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was sentenced, and the original copy of the judgment is also recognized as served by public notice.

However, it can be acknowledged that Defendant (Appointed) received an authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance on March 25, 2019, and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on July 19, 2019, when at least four months thereafter elapsed. As such, Defendant (Appointed) came to know that the judgment of the first instance was served by means of service by public notice upon receiving the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance, and that the said appeal for subsequent completion filed on July 19, 2019, much more than two weeks thereafter, was unlawful, since it was filed in excess of the subsequent completion period.

The third person who has succeeded to the whole or part of the rights or obligations which are the object of the lawsuit while the lawsuit is pending before the court, shall examine the judgment on the legitimacy of the intervenor's application for intervention in succession.