1. The defendant's petition for retrial is dismissed;

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The following facts are apparent in the records:

(1) The first instance court served all the litigation documents against the Defendant by means of service, and served the judgment of the first instance court rendered on February 4, 2014 by means of service by public notice.

(2) The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance. A duplicate of the petition of appeal was impossible to be served due to an unknown address. On April 10, 2015 and June 24, 2015, the appellate court issued an order to serve by public notice on July 28, 2015, which had not been served for the same reason even though the address was revised on two occasions on April 10, 2015 and June 24, 2015, and thereafter all the documents of the lawsuit against the Defendant were served by public notice, and was served by public notice on October 14, 2015.

(3) In January 7, 2016, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the said judgment was rendered, and submitted a subsequent appellate brief on January 21, 2016, and the final appeal was dismissed on June 10, 2016.

Meanwhile, on January 25, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit for reexamination of the instant case.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance, as well as the facts on which the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, and even at the appellate trial, all the documents of the lawsuit were served by service by public notice, and the appeal was not known to the fact that the appeal on this case was filed. In such a situation, the date for pleading is proceeding without the defendant's appearance, and the defendant lost an opportunity to submit evidence consistent with his own argument

In such a case, the provisions of Article 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act may apply mutatis mutandis to the case where a party was not represented legally by an agent.

As such, there are such grounds for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da6621, Mar. 24, 2006).

2. There are grounds for review as to whether the judgment subject to review is justifiable.