1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff’s KRW 994,200 against the Defendant and its related thereto from October 11, 2016 to October 18, 2019.

1. If a copy of the complaint, original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was 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 after such cause ceases to exist

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered 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. Thus, barring any special circumstances, 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 he/she

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court, on January 10, 2013, issued a notice of the complaint and the date for pleading to the Defendant by public notice, and issued a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on November 8, 2017 by means of service by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant on November 15, 2017; the Defendant was notified of the scheduled compulsory execution accompanied by the copy of the judgment of the first instance court on December 20, 2017, and became aware of the fact that the first instance court was served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice, upon receipt of the notice of scheduled compulsory execution accompanied by the copy of the judgment of the first instance court on December 20, 2017, and submitted the subsequent appeal on December 22, 2017.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from the time the cause ceases to exist. Thus, the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is on the D Private Taxi operated by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).