Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.

Unless there exist special circumstances, if a copy of a complaint of determination on the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion and an original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion 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 either 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 becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006). In this case, following the service of a complaint and notice of date for pleading to the Defendant by public notice, the proceedings were initiated by public notice. On March 6, 2019, the judgment of the first instance court rendered in favor of the Plaintiff on March 6, 2019. The original copy of the judgment also was served on the Defendant by public notice on March 9, 2019. On July 30, 2019, the Defendant was entirely aware of the progress and result of the said lawsuit. The fact that the judgment of the first instance court became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice after being sentenced by public notice and was served by public notice by public notice is obvious.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause for which he could not be held responsible because he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence. Thus, the appeal of this case filed by the defendant on July 30, 2019, which was filed on August 7, 2019, within two weeks from July 30, 2019, when he knew that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice