1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

1. Whether the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.

In addition, the term “the date on which a cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).

In this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 13, 2010 after delivering a copy of complaint and the notice of date for pleading against the Defendant by public notice, and subsequently proceeding with pleadings. The original judgment was also rendered in favor of the Defendant on October 13, 2010, and the original judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on August 29, 2014 without allowing perusal of the records of the case in the first instance court or receipt of new original judgment, may be recognized in this court or by means of the entire purport of pleadings. Thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion of proceedings in this case is legitimate appeal satisfying the requirements

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is a company that runs the guarantee insurance business, and is a co-defendant A Co-Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) of the first instance court, a contractor of the guarantee insurance.

- As follows: