1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff (appointed party) who falls under the above revoked part.

1. If a copy of a complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, and the original copy of the judgment, etc., were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases

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. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that a 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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). As to the instant case, the Health Center and the first instance court rendered a judgment of the first instance court on December 20, 2013 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a writ of summons for the date of pleading by public notice. The original of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the Defendant received the original copy of the judgment on June 10, 2014 and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on June 20, 2014 can be acknowledged either by record or by the purport of the entire pleadings.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is clear that the defendant's appeal of this case constitutes a time when the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and it is reasonable to view that the first instance court's judgment on June 10, 2014, which was the time when the defendant received the original copy of the judgment, became aware of the fact that it was served by service by public notice. Thus, the defendant's appeal of subsequent completion filed within two weeks

I would like to say.

2...