1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's successor's application for intervention are dismissed in all.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1.The following facts of recognition may be recognized, either by recording or by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings, in each entry in Gap evidence 6 to 9:

On November 22, 2013, the first instance court served a notice of the complaint and the date of pleading against the defendant by means of each service by public notice, and served the first instance judgment on November 22, 2013. On November 26, 2013, the first instance judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice.

B. On April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred a claim against the Defendant in accordance with the judgment of first instance to the Intervenor, and then filed an application with the Defendant for service by publication of an expression of intent to notify the assignment of claims under the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2018Karo378, but on October 2, 2018, the Plaintiff rendered a final decision of dismissal on the ground that “the notice of assignment of claims was already served on the Defendant on September 20, 2018.”

C. Accordingly, on April 18, 2019, the Intervenor was granted the succeeding execution clause to the judgment of the first instance on April 18, 2019, and a certified copy of the succeeding execution clause was served on the Defendant on April 22, 2019.

On July 30, 2019, the Defendant received the original copy of the judgment from the first instance court. On August 7, 2019, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion on August 7, 2019. The Intervenor filed an appeal for the subsequent completion on September 27, 2019, which was subsequent to the filing of an appeal for the subsequent completion.

2. Judgment ex officio as to whether the defendant's subsequent appeal and the motion for intervention by the intervenor are legitimate

A. If a copy of a complaint and an original copy of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the parties were unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant constitutes a case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and constitutes a case where he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory term, and thus the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. The "after the cause ceases to exist" in this context is not when the parties or legal representatives