1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. If a copy, copy, etc. of a complaint on the legitimacy of the appeal of this case was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served 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. In ordinary cases, 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

(2) On February 24, 2006, the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). A copy of the complaint was served on the Defendant, who was his/her resident registration address at the time, to the “Dansan-gu D Building E, which was the resident registration address, but was not served due to the addressee’s unknown address, was served through service by public notice, and subsequently rendered a judgment. The original copy of the judgment was served by public notice. On September 7, 2018, the Defendant received the complaint of the Busan District Court 2018Da41450, which was filed by the Plaintiff for the extension of the extinctive prescription period, and received a certified copy of the first instance judgment of this case on September 14, 2018, and filed the appeal of this case on September 19, 2018.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant was unable to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant’s failure to know the service of the first instance judgment without negligence. Therefore, the Defendant’s judgment was served by public notice by the first instance court.