The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. On November 24, 2011, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on November 24, 201 after delivering a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, a written guidance of lawsuit, and a written notice of date for pleading by public notice, with respect to the Defendant. On December 28, 2011, the fact that the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice is significant in this court.

B. On June 13, 2019, the Defendant asserted that the period of appeal could not be observed due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, and filed a subsequent appeal against the judgment of the first instance court.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful, since two weeks have passed since the Defendant received the seizure and collection order issued based on the judgment of the first instance court on November 29, 2017, and the above subsequent completion appeal was filed.

C. As to the subsequent completion of procedural acts, Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, the procedural acts may be supplemented within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In the case of subsequent appeal, “the date on which the cause ceases to exist” refers to the date on which the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by means of service by public notice, rather than the time when the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013). D.

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of evidence Nos. 8, 10 and 10, and evidence No. 1.

1 The defendant left Korea on December 27, 2002 and resided in a foreign country until July 4, 2017, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be rendered by the defendant.