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 the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. Unless there exist special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. 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 comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "when 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, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da30427 delivered on August 22, 1997, etc.). B.

The first instance court rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on August 24, 2015, after serving a copy of the complaint, notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and served the plaintiff on August 24, 2015. The original copy of the judgment also served on the defendant by public notice. However, the defendant perused and copied the first instance judgment on December 21, 2016. The fact that the defendant filed an appeal for the completion of the instant appeal on December 22, 2016 is clearly recorded or is obvious in the record.

C. Therefore, according to the above legal doctrine, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant, and that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice only when the first instance court inspected the judgment on December 21, 2016, and that the appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of the litigation and is lawful.

2. Determination as to the merits.