1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. As to the legitimacy of the 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 delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring 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 a new original of the judgment.

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

Pursuant to the foregoing legal doctrine, the health department and the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 29, 2019 after serving a complaint, etc. against the Defendant by public notice, and the court rendered a favorable judgment on May 29, 2019. The original judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the Defendant received the original judgment on August 5, 2019 and filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on August 14, 2019 before the lapse of two weeks, is apparent in the record, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of the litigation.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff A is the mother of the deceased G (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the Selection D, E, and F are the children of the deceased.

The Defendant is the owner of a warehouse adjacent to the site of the deceased’s death (hereinafter “instant warehouse”).

B. On May 4, 2016, the Deceased’s Death Accident is below the H’s detached house on the ground of the Young-gun, Gangwon-do around 11:40.