1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. If a copy of the complaint, original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks after such 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 rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any 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 he/she

(See) The court of first instance rendered a judgment that fully accepts a claim against the Defendant on August 29, 2018, by serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date for pleading by public notice, on January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051). The fact that the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant on September 1, 2018 by means of service by public notice, that the Defendant received the original copy of the first instance judgment issued by public notice on March 27, 2019 by receiving the original copy of the judgment from this court on March 27, 2019, and that the first instance judgment was served by public notice. The fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on March 28, 2019 is significant in this court.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from the time the cause ceases to exist. Thus, the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is the spouse of F, who died on November 25, 2017 (hereinafter “the deceased”), and Plaintiff B, C, and D are the deceased’s children.