1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff acceptance intervenor are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit.

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint of related legal principles were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant shall be deemed not to have been aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for the subsequent completion within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable

In addition, the term “the date on which a cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative was

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).

Judgment

The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on January 16, 2012 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and the notice of date for pleading by public notice, and proceeding with pleadings on January 16, 2012. The original of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. On July 8, 2019, after becoming aware of the fact that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, the Defendant submitted the petition for appeal of the instant case on July 10, 201, the fact that the Defendant submitted the petition for appeal of the instant case on

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal due to the failure of the court of first instance to know the fact that the court of first instance was served by public notice without negligence, and the defendant was aware of the fact that the court of first instance was served by public notice. The defendant filed an appeal to complete appeal within two weeks from July 8, 2019, which became aware of the fact that the court