The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the service on the defendant was made by means of public notice from the duplicate of the complaint to the copy of the complaint, and the defendant was not aware of the fact that the lawsuit or appeal was filed without any cause attributable to the defendant, and the date for pleading of the first instance court and the lower court without the defendant's appearance was in progress, and the defendant lost an opportunity to submit evidence consistent with his own assertion and thus the right granted to the defendant as a party was infringed upon, it shall be deemed that the provision of Article 424 (1) 4 of the Civil Procedure Act should apply mutatis mutandis

(2) According to the records, the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on April 27, 201, when the Defendant did not appear at the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da21365, May 30, 1997; 2010Da98948, Apr. 28, 201). 2. The records reveal the following facts: (a) the court of first instance served documents, such as a copy of the complaint and the date for pleading, by public notice; (b) the court of first instance rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on April 27, 2017; and (c) served the original judgment by public notice; (d) the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the first instance judgment; (e) served documents, such as a duplicate of the petition of appeal, the date for pleading, and the date for pleading, etc.; and (e) declared that part of the Plaintiff’s claim was cited by public notice; and (e) served the original judgment by public notice; and (e.

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant, as a party, has lost the opportunity to submit evidence consistent with his/her assertion, thereby granting procedural authority.