1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Unless there exist special circumstances, if a copy of a complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the parties or legal representatives knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than when the parties or legal representatives knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the parties or legal representatives knew of the fact that the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

In full view of the description of evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the court of first instance may recognize the fact that the defendant served the copy of the complaint and the notice of date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and the court rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff on August 8, 2016, and the original copy of the judgment was served on August 11, 2016 by public notice. The defendant may recognize the fact that the defendant served the original copy of the ruling on the seizure of claims and collection order No. 2016, Daegu District Court Decision 2016, Oct. 21, 2016 and the original copy of the ruling on the seizure of claims and collection order No. 2041, and submitted the appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on October 21, 2016.

C. Thus, the defendant could not comply with the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant's failure to know that the judgment of the court of first instance was delivered without negligence. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date the defendant knew that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice is lawful.

2...