1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The plaintiff asserted that since the defendant did not receive a copy of the complaint at his domicile even after being aware of the continuation of the lawsuit in this case and was served with the original copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment through service by public notice, the defendant's subsequent appeal is unlawful.

B. Article 173(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." In this context, "reasons for which the party cannot be held liable" means the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though he/she fulfilled the duty of due care to do the procedural acts, even though he/she

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). According to the records of this case, the first instance court rendered a judgment that served the Defendant with a notice of a copy of the complaint and the date of pleading by public notice, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on August 6, 2014 after the pleading was made, and the original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant on August 7, 2014 by public notice, and based on the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff was on February 1, 2018.