1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Determination on the legality of a subsequent appeal

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the causes for which the party could not observe the period even though he/she had performed the duty of care generally to conduct the litigation

However, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal should be deemed as attributable to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, if the judgment was rendered without knowing the fact that the Defendant had been pending, and only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice and became aware of such fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005). B.

According to the records of this case, the first instance court of this case sent a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date of pleading to the defendant by public notice, and rendered a judgment citing the plaintiff's claim against the defendant on July 10, 2019 after the pleading was conducted, and the original copy of the judgment was also served to the defendant by public notice. The defendant becomes aware that the first instance court of this case was served by public notice, around August 9, 2019, with the delivery of the claim seizure and collection order, around August 9, 2019. The fact that the defendant was aware that the first instance court of this case was served by public notice, and that the defendant filed the appeal of this case on July 14, 2019.

C. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him, and the instant appeal for subsequent completion was filed within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. Thus, the instant appeal for subsequent completion is dismissed.