1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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.

On January 15, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant by serving a copy of the complaint and notice of date for pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff on January 15, 2015. The original of the judgment also served on the defendant by means of service by public notice. However, the defendant perused and copied the judgment of the first instance court on March 20, 2017. The fact that the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on March 20, 2017 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 failed to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, and that he was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice only when he inspected the judgment of the first instance on March 20, 2017, and that the appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of the litigation.

2. Judgment on the merits.