1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks (30 days if the reason was in a foreign country at the time when the reason ceases to exist) after it ceased to exist because it was impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” 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 said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy

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

In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order against the Defendant on June 10, 2014 with the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Office 2014Guj530, Incheon District Court, but the said court issued an order to correct the Defendant’s address when the original copy of the payment order sent to the Defendant’s domicile was impossible to be served due to the Defendant’s resident registration address. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for filing a lawsuit with the above court No. 2014Gabu56795 on July 10, 2014. When the duplicate of the complaint sent to the Defendant’s resident registration address was impossible to be served, the court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on November 20, 2014, and delivered the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court against the Defendant by service by publication, and the Defendant applied for perusal and duplication of records on October 27, 2016, and thus, the judgment of the first instance court and its judgment existed.