The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

1. If a copy of the petition of appeal and the notice of date for pleading was served by public notice to the appellant to determine whether the appeal is lawful, and the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice, the appellee was unaware of the fact that the appellate procedure was in progress, barring any special circumstance, and barring any special circumstance, the appellee was unaware of the service of the judgment without fault, and it constitutes a case where the appellee was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the appellee may supplement the appeal within two weeks (within thirty days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time when the cause ceases to exist) from the date on which such cause

(2) In light of the record, the lower court’s judgment on April 13, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da102172, Apr. 13, 201) revealed the following facts: (a) the Defendant, the appellant, was serving a duplicate of the instant petition of appeal and the notice of date for pleading by public notice; (b) the judgment was served on April 1, 2008; and (c) the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice; and (d) the Defendant was aware that the lower judgment was declared on September 16, 2017; and (e) the Defendant submitted the subsequent subsequent final appeal to the lower court.

Examining the above facts in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant could not observe the period of final appeal, which is a peremptory term, due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant. Since the Defendant supplemented the final appeal within two weeks from September 16, 2017, on which the cause ceases to exist, the instant final appeal is lawful.

2. From a duplicate of the petition of appeal to determine ex officio as to the defendant's violation of the defendant's procedural right, the appeal was filed in this case without any cause attributable to service by public notice, and the date for pleading of the court below without the defendant's appearance was proceeding, and the defendant violated the right granted as a party to the procedure.

In such a case.