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

1. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, 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 comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, the appeal for subsequent completion may be filed within two weeks from the date such cause ceases

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 rendered, and further the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice is known.

In ordinary cases, only when a party or legal representative peruses the records of the case or receives a new original of the judgment, it shall be deemed that he/she became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006. The judgment of the first instance court was rendered after a copy of the complaint and the date of pleading, etc. were served by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the Defendant received the original copy of the judgment on July 30, 2019, and submitted the instant written appeal to the first instance court on August 6, 2019 is apparent in the record.

According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to the failure of the first instance court to know the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice.

Since the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal within 2 weeks from the time when he became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, the instant subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. According to the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, and 14, the defendant issued a C card (the card number D; hereinafter "the card of this case") from the plaintiff and used it from December 201 to July 201, and the credit card of this case as of August 2014.