1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The plaintiff, as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case, asserts that the defendant's subsequent appeal of this case is unlawful on the ground that the period for the subsequent appeal of this case lapsed.

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence if it was served by means of service, such as a copy of the complaint, a copy of the complaint, an original copy of the judgment, etc., and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent appeal within

The term "after the cause has ceased to exist" 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 judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013 (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051). The court of first instance, in this case, served a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant to “Seoul Gwangjin-gu R, 307, the domicile of the Defendant on the Defendant’s resident registration,” but became impossible to serve the copy of the complaint. Accordingly, the court of first instance issued the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 3, 2014 after serving a notice of the date of pleading with the Defendant by means of service by public notice. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant on the service of the Defendant on September 5, 2014. The Defendant becomes aware of the lawsuit related to the Defendant’s domicile on January 28, 2015, visiting the Defendant’s office’s receipt of the original copy on June 6, 2015; and visiting the Defendant’s attorney on the same date.