1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. If a copy of a complaint, original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant is deemed unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time of the extinguishment

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, Jan. 10, 2013). In the instant case, the Defendant was served both a writ of summons and a date for pleading with respect to the Defendant by public notice, and the litigation procedure was initiated, and the judgment of the first instance court was rendered on December 23, 2008, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice on January 7, 2009. The Defendant was unaware of the progress and result of the said lawsuit. The fact that the first instance court became aware that the judgment was served by public notice only after being served with a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance court on October 17, 2014 is obvious.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant as he was unaware of the service of the judgment of the court of first instance without negligence. Thus, the defendant raised within two weeks from October 17, 2014, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by service by public notice.