1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. If a copy of a complaint, original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant is deemed unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time of the extinguishment

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 other special circumstance, it should be deemed that the 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 the original copy

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). Following the service of a writ of summons on the Defendant’s complaint and the date of pleading by public notice in the instant case, the litigation procedure was initiated by public notice, the judgment of the first instance court in favor of the Plaintiff was rendered on March 12, 2014, and the original copy of the judgment is also the same year.

3. The fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served on the Defendants by public notice on August 27, 201, and the Defendant was entirely unaware of the progress and result of the said lawsuit, and the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice is clearly recorded.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant as he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence. Thus, the defendant raised within two weeks from August 7, 2014, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered by service by public notice.