1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment regarding the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case were served by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, unless there are special circumstances. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) from the date on which the cause ceases to exist (Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Here, 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 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, unless there are other special circumstances.

(2) According to the records, the court of first instance ordered the service of the defendant by public notice on May 14, 2014, and subsequently rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on June 12, 2014 after the notice of the date of pleading was served by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the defendant by public notice on June 21, 2014. The defendant knew that the original copy of the judgment was issued by public notice at the first instance court on December 17, 2014, while he was not aware of the fact that the judgment of first instance was pronounced, the court of first instance became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only after having been issued by public notice on December 17, 2014, and the fact that the original copy of the judgment was submitted by public notice on December 22, 2014, before the lapse of two weeks can be recognized.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant subsequent to the instant case is within the lawful appeal period and subsequently completed the procedural acts.