1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. If the legality, copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint of subsequent appeal 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 observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may 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. 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 the records of the case

(2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on December 27, 2013 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant by public notice, the date of pleading, etc. as to the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on December 27, 2013. The original judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant received the authentic copy of the judgment on March 17, 2014, immediately before the filing of the instant appeal. The fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on March 18, 2014, while knowing that the said judgment was served by public notice was clearly recorded, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion of litigation satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.

2. The plaintiff is the father of the defendant.

The Plaintiff, on July 8, 2013, donated the instant land owned by it to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant donation”), and on the same day, was based on the said donation under the Gwangju District Court’s receipt of the Gwangju District Court’s Mayangyang Branch Office (21047).