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. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “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.” Here, “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though he/she fulfilled the duty of due care to conduct procedural acts, even though he/she fulfilled the duty

However, in a case where the original judgment was served on 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 fault. If the Defendant was sentenced from the beginning without knowing the continuation of a lawsuit and the Defendant became aware of such fact only after the original 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 period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). B.

Fact-finding is clear that the following facts are recorded:

On December 20, 2017, when the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, the court of first instance rendered a decision of performance recommendation to the Defendant on December 20, 2017, and served it to the Defendant on the 21st of the same month, but was not served due to the absence of closure. At night service by an execution officer also served a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by service by public notice, and served a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on March 27, 2018. The original judgment also served by public notice.

The defendant is not aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced, and the judgment of the court of first instance on August 28, 2018 is owned by the defendant as executive title.