1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Where a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where it is impossible to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring any other special circumstances, 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 inspected the records of the case or received the original

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da8964 Decided June 11, 2015. As to the instant case, the health department, the first trial against the Defendant was conducted by service by public notice from the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the delivery of the original copy of the judgment, the service of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant was effective on December 3, 2008, and the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case on September 25, 2017 is apparent in the record, and the Defendant asserted that he/she was aware of the existence of the instant case through the Legal Aid Corporation around September 15, 2017 upon receipt of a notice of the scheduled notification of the scheduled application for provisional attachment, such as a claim, from the Plaintiff on September 8, 2017.

There is no reason to deem that the original copy of the judgment was received.

Therefore, the defendant filed an incidental appeal within two weeks from the time when the reason for appeal ceases to exist, even though the defendant failed to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him.