1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

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, barring any special circumstance. 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 completion within two weeks after such cause ceases

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, and further, the fact that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice is known.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044). After a complaint against the Defendant was served by public notice and the litigation procedure was initiated, the judgment of the first instance court was rendered on April 13, 2015, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice on April 15, 2015. The fact that the Defendant was issued the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on May 29, 2015, and the Defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on June 4, 2015 is clearly recorded in the record, and comprehensively taking account of the entries in the evidence No. 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the Plaintiff received the order of provisional execution attachment and collection by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Mo12397, May 22, 2015 can be acknowledged.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was delivered by service by public notice only around May 29, 2015, when the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was issued due to the plaintiff's seizure and execution of a collection order.

Therefore, the defendant was unable to comply with the appeal period due to the failure of the defendant to know the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence, and the appeal of this case was filed by the court of first instance with the knowledge of the fact that the defendant was served by service by public notice.