The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

1. If a copy of the petition of appeal and the summons of the date of pleading were served by means of service by public notice to the appellee as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case, and the original copy of the judgment was served by means of service by public notice, the appellee is deemed not aware of the fact that the appellate procedure was in progress, barring special circumstances, and thus, the appellee was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the appellee is deemed not capable of complying with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and the appellee is able to make an subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if he/she was in a foreign country at the time when such cause ceases to exist) from the date on which

(2) According to the records, the lower court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da21365, May 30, 1997; 2009Da59282, Nov. 12, 2009). The record reveals the fact that the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal seeking revocation, etc. of the lower judgment on December 18, 2013, seeking revocation, etc. of the instant written appeal to the lower court on the grounds that: (a) the lower court rendered a judgment on January 18, 2012; and (b) served the original judgment by public notice; and (c) the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the lower judgment was declared by public notice; and (d) on December 12, 2013, the lower court became aware of the fact that the instant written appeal was filed to the lower court on December 18, 2013.

Thus, the defendant's appeal of this case is lawful because it is not possible for the defendant to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the first instance court served documents against the Defendant, such as a copy of the complaint, the date for pleading, etc., by public notice, and served the Defendant on the date for pleading under the circumstance where the Defendant did not appear, during the Plaintiff’s claim on July 15, 201.