1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

1) On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. The first instance court served documents, such as a duplicate of the complaint and a guide of lawsuit, on the part of the Defendant, but was unable to serve on the Defendant due to lack of text, etc., the first instance court served the Defendant with documents of lawsuit, such as a duplicate of the complaint and a notice of the date for pleading, by public notice. 2) On September 20, 2018, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on October 18, 2018, following the first instance court’s proceeding on the date for pleading, and the closure of pleadings, and concluded the pleadings, and served the original judgment on the Defendant by public notice on October 19, 2018.

3) On May 20, 2019, the Defendant perused and copied the instant records and received the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance. On May 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment of the first instance on March 15, 2019. Meanwhile, on March 15, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for an explanation of property with the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch Office 2019Kao100, and the said court rendered the order on the date of specification of property on March 18, 2019, and the Defendant received a certified copy of the said decision on the date of specification of property on March 20, 2019.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the litigation in his negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist," and "where the first instance judgment was served by public notice, the time when the cause ceases to exist" under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act means the time when the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was received by public notice. In ordinary cases, only when the defendant read the relevant case's records or received the original copy of the judgment, such judgment shall be served by public notice.