1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the subsequent appeal is unlawful, since the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal after the lapse of 14 days from the date when the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered on April 2016.

Unless there exist special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with 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. Here, the "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. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware that the judgment was served by public notice only

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044). The first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on January 26, 2016 after both a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a written notice of the date of pleading by service by public notice. The original of the judgment also served on the Defendant by service by public notice at that time. The Defendant was aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was issued only on June 20, 2016, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was pronounced, and that the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment on June 22, 2016, which is within two weeks thereafter, is apparent in the record.

Thus, the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant's failure to know that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered without negligence. Thus, the appeal of this case is lawful.

Therefore, it is true.