1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment regarding the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case were served by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, unless there are special circumstances. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) from the date on which the cause ceases to exist (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Here, the "date on which 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, and further, the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, unless there are other special circumstances.

(2) According to the records, the court of first instance ordered the service of the defendant by public notice on September 26, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The court of first instance ordered the service of the defendant by public notice on September 26, 2014, and subsequently rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on November 5, 2014. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice on November 6, 2014. The defendant knew that the original copy of the judgment was issued by public notice at the first instance court on December 17, 2014 without knowing the fact that the judgment of first instance was pronounced, and it can be recognized the fact that the first instance court was served by public notice on the date of subsequent completion of the petition of appeal of this case on the 29th of the same month.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant after the subsequent completion of this case is legitimate and satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.