1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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 court of first instance was rendered after a duplicate of the complaint of this case was impossible to be served with the defendant's resident registration as his/her domicile and was served to the defendant by means of service by public notice. The original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was served to the defendant by means of service by public notice, and the defendant submitted the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance to the court of first instance on the same day after the defendant was issued with the original copy of the judgment of first instance on February 10, 2020 and on the same day, the fact that the defendant submitted the original copy of the appeal of this case to the court of first instance is clearly recorded in the record or recognized by the statement of evidence No. 1 and the purport of all pleadings.

According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to the failure of the court of first instance to know that the judgment was delivered by public notice without negligence, and thus the defendant could not be responsible for such failure.

Since the court of first instance filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from the time it became aware that the judgment was served by public notice, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's summary of the assertion.