1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. If a copy of a written complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, and the original copy of the judgment, etc., were served 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 was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after

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

(2) On January 10, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing all the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant on October 12, 2012 after serving a copy of the complaint of this case and a writ of summons on the date of pleading by public notice to the Defendant as to this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). The judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant on October 12, 2012, and the original copy thereof was served to the Defendant by public notice. On August 25, 2015, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was served by public notice only after receiving contact with the Defendant regarding the exclusion of dividends in an auction related to real estate as indicated in the separate sheet, and thereafter, it is apparent that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on September 3, 2015, which satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of the appeal of this case.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff, based on the facts, filed a claim for reimbursement against D with the Ulsan District Court 2004Kadan2518.