1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, against the Defendant, KRW 44,614,398 against the Plaintiff, KRW 33,796,088 against the Plaintiff and KRW 44.

1. As to the legality of the appeal

(a) In case where a party was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the procedural acts being negligent within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist;

(30) days for the parties in a foreign country at the time such cause ceases to exist; or

(Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint 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 is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and the defendant falls under a case where he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days where

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

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

The appeal of this case was filed on July 11, 2017 on November 14, 2017 after two weeks of the appeal period, which was the first instance judgment, to the defendant.

However, since the lawsuit of the first instance court was served on the defendant by means of service by public notice, it shall be deemed that the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence and that the period of appeal was not observed due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

The Defendant applied for perusal and duplication of the instant records on November 10, 2017.