The judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 2000, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of goods under the Seoul District Court Decision 2000 Ghana 207202.

On October 24, 200, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,928,390 won with 25% interest per annum from October 5, 2000 to the date of full payment." The above judgment (hereinafter "the judgment of this case") became final and conclusive on November 24, 200.

B. On August 26, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for a payment order under the Incheon District Court Decision 201j 1417 at the Busan District Court Branch Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, but the instant lawsuit was filed on the grounds that the original copy of the payment order was not served on the Defendant.

(c)

On November 3, 2011, the first instance court ordered the defendant to give public notice, and notified the defendant of a copy of the complaint and a written notice of the date of pleading.

On December 8, 2011, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting all the plaintiff's claims, and the judgment was also served on the defendant by means of public notice delivery.

On December 9, 2019, the defendant submitted a petition of appeal to the first instance court.

[Recognition of Fact] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. If the main text of a complaint and the main text of a judgment were served by means of public notice delivery, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant may subsequently supplement the appeal within two weeks from the date of the first ruling because the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her. Here, the "date of truth due to the cause" refers to the date when the party or legal representative was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by means of public notice delivery, and further, the fact that the judgment was served by means of public notice delivery is not the date when the party or legal representative was served, barring any other special circumstances.