1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal 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 became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, unless there are other 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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

Judgment

1. On August 26, 2016, the first instance court served the defendant with a copy of the complaint, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and tried to accept the plaintiff's claim on August 26, 2016. The original of the judgment was served on the defendant on August 30, 2016 by public notice. The fact that the defendant was issued an original copy of the judgment of the first instance court on October 6, 2016 and submitted an appeal for subsequent completion to the first instance court on October 11, 2016 is apparent in the record.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware of the fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed and that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice, and that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice only after receiving the original judgment of the court of first instance on October 6, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him, and the seal which ceases to exist.