1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's successor's application for intervention are all dismissed.

2. Costs of lawsuit after an appeal is filed.

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

(a) The facts under the recognition are recognized based on the records and the purport of the entire pleadings or significant facts in this Court.

1) On June 1, 2010, the first instance court served a duplicate of the complaint of this case and a notice of the date for pleading by public notice to the Defendant, and closed pleadings without the Defendant’s attendance, and subsequently sentenced the first instance judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on June 4, 2010. The original copy of the judgment also served to the Defendant by public notice and became effective on June 25, 2010. (2) On November 29, 2019, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor filed a lawsuit for the claim for the amount of takeover under the judgment of the first instance court as Seoul Central District Court 2019Da2856743, stating that “the first instance judgment became final and conclusive” was presented as evidence.

On December 10, 2019, the above court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the instant decision on performance recommendation”) to the Defendant along with a written complaint, etc., and the Defendant confirmed a copy of the judgment of the first instance, which is the evidence attached to the instant decision on performance recommendation, and thereafter filed an objection against the instant decision on performance recommendation on December 24, 2019 on the ground that “the notice of assignment of claim was not received, and the extinctive prescription of claim based on the final and conclusive judgment was completed.”

3) After the plaintiff succeeding intervenor filed an application for grant of the execution clause against the judgment of the first instance, and on January 10, 2020, a certified copy of the succeeding execution clause was served on the defendant. 4) The defendant submitted a certified copy of the succeeding execution clause to the first instance court on March 10, 2020 to the court of first instance.

B. Subsequent to the relevant legal principles, in a case where a party was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, it shall be able to supplement the procedural acts being neglected within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and the copy, original, etc. of the complaint and the judgment by public notice