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 a complaint as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion and the original copy of the judgment were served 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 is unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "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 to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of

(2) The judgment of the first instance court rendered on August 24, 2017 and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice. The Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Defendant (the land and building in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, I and the ground) as the branch court of the Daejeon District Court, and applied for a compulsory auction on October 27, 2018, and served on the Defendant by public notice. The judgment of the first instance court rendered on August 24, 2017, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice. The judgment of the first instance court rendered on August 25, 2017, and the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Defendant (the original judgment was served on April 27, 2018; and on May 3, 2018, the original judgment of the first instance court was served on the Defendant by public notice.