1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is 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 the judgment was rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, 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 he/she read

[See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 (Counterclaim) Decided January 10, 2013, etc.] B.

The following facts can be acknowledged clearly by records, or by the purport of Gap evidence 2 through 5, as a whole.

1) On July 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, but did not serve a service on the Defendant. (2) On November 11, 2011, the presiding judge of the first instance court ordered the Defendant to serve a service by public notice. Accordingly, the first instance court served a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant by public notice, and thereafter served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court rendered on February 22, 2012 by public notice.

3. On June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction of real estate with the Jung-gu District Court C for the enforcement of the above judgment and received a decision to commence the compulsory auction of real estate from the above court on June 27, 2018. The original copy of the above decision to commence the compulsory auction was sent to the Defendant around that time, but eventually, on July 4, 2018.