1. All the appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim filed by this court.

1. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case, 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 completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

The term "after the cause has ceased to exist" refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstances, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when he/she read the records of the case or received

(2) According to the records of the instant case, the court of first instance may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant perused the records of the instant case on March 22, 2017 and received the original copy of the first instance judgment, and subsequently filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of first instance on March 23, 2017, by serving a notice of the date for pleading against the Defendant by public notice and serving the notice of the date for pleading by public notice. In so doing, the court of first instance may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of first instance on March 23, 2017.

According to the above facts, the defendant could not be able to observe the appeal period, which is a peremptory period, because he was unable to know the progress and result, etc. of the instant lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself, by serving the copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint of this case by public notice. Thus, the appeal of this case filed by the defendant within two weeks from March 22, 2017, which was perused by the records of this case, is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of the litigation

2. The main office;