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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff received a provisional execution of the judgment of the first instance court of this case against the defendant's deposit claim against the defendant's Nonghyup Bank, and served the above order on or around January 17, 2013. Since the Nonghyup Bank notified the defendant that it could not pay the deposit claim because it had issued the above claim seizure and collection order, it shall be deemed that the defendant could sufficiently have known the fact that the judgment of the first instance court of this case was delivered by public notice. Thus, the appeal of this case filed two weeks thereafter is unlawful.

B. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of judgment were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. 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, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" "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 service by public notice, rather than when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstances. Thus, in ordinary cases where the party or

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). The case returned to the instant case, and the case was examined, and the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and proceeded with pleadings on September 26, 2012. The judgment rendered in favor of the Plaintiff on September 26, 2012, and the original of the judgment also served by public notice.