1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a case where the defendant, even though he was aware of the fact of filing the lawsuit in this case and of the judgment of the court of first instance, was unable to observe the period of appeal due to the defendant's fault.

The defendant's subsequent appeal is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) Unless there are special circumstances, where a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term “after the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006), barring any other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the original copy was perused, or received by public notice (see, Supreme Court Decision 20001Da1371, etc.).

Around May 2019, the Defendant received contact from the E Bank that the collection order was served, and received the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on May 3, 2019, and filed an appeal on May 13, 2019.

Records are clear and the purport of the whole pleadings.