1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of subsequent appeal was filed against the Defendant in order to extend the prescription period of the judgment of the court of first instance. The Defendant was served with a copy of the instant complaint attached to the judgment of the court of first instance on October 28, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal filed after the lapse of two weeks is unlawful since he/she knew of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by means of service by public notice around October 28, 2017.

Judgment

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 not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and thus the defendant is entitled to make an appeal subsequent to subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "when 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, and further, the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstances. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). The first instance court served a copy of the complaint, notification of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and concluded a pleading. On December 20, 2007, the judgment of the first instance that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim was pronounced, and the original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the Defendant filed an subsequent appeal against the judgment of the first instance on February 8, 2018 after being issued the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance on February 6, 2018 is apparent in the record.