1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff is a provisional payment to the defendant.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

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 is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may subsequently complete the appeal within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases

B. On January 17, 2018, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on January 17, 2018 after delivering a duplicate of the complaint and the notice of the date of pleading to the Defendant by public notice. The original of the judgment was served on the Defendant on January 20, 2018 by public notice. On September 20, 2018, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served on September 20, 2018 by public notice, and the fact that the court of the first instance submitted a written appeal for the same day is apparent or obvious.

According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the time the cause ceases to exist. Thus, the appeal for subsequent completion of appeal of this case is lawful.

C. On January 28, 2018, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant appeal is unlawful, since the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was rendered at the latest around January 28, 2018.

However, “the date on which the cause ceases to exist” as the initial date of the subsequent appeal refers to the date on which a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the date on which the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative became 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