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. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, the appeal for subsequent completion may be filed within two weeks from the date such cause ceases

The "date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, and further the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice is known.

In ordinary cases, only when a party or legal representative peruses the records of the case or receives a new original of the judgment, it shall be deemed that he/she became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006). After a duplicate of a complaint was served by public notice to the Defendant, the judgment of the first instance was rendered, and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for subsequent completion to the first instance court on November 14, 2019, and the facts that the Defendant had not perused the records of the first instance court or received the original copy of the judgment are apparent in the record.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period due to the failure of the court of first instance to know that the judgment was served by service by public notice without negligence.

On November 11, 2019, the Defendant asserted that the first instance judgment became aware of the fact that it was served by public notice. However, as the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from that time, the instant subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) of the judgment on the merits, the Plaintiff shall be the Defendant over fourteen times from December 23, 2015 to April 1, 2016.