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 a subsequent appeal

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notification of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and served the plaintiff's claim against the defendant on November 4, 2016, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice. On December 13, 2017, the defendant, while inspecting the records of the case on December 13, 2017, filed a subsequent appeal on December 14, 2017, prior to the lapse of two weeks from the knowledge of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice, is clearly recorded in the records. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal of this case is a legitimate appeal that satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”) is a company that operates sports clubs that provide services, such as health, golf, etc., in Ilyang-gu, Ilyang-gu.

The defendant.