Civil Appeals: Deadlines and Methods of Challenging a Judgment

Based on 136 consultation cases · Updated October 4, 2026 · Translated from the Korean original.

In civil proceedings, appeals to an intermediate appellate court or the Supreme Court must comply with the prescribed deadlines and procedures. If a party missed a deadline for a reason not attributable to them, subsequent completion may be available. However, the effect and available remedies vary depending on the facts, including whether service was made by public notice, at a false address, or through electronic litigation. The method of service and when the party learned of it should therefore be confirmed.

People involved → Party seeking to appeal → Other party → A judgment was served late or an appeal step was missed → Was the judgment copy lawfully served? → No — the appeal period may not have started → Appeal may remain available or the deadline may not have started → Yes → Was the missed deadline caused by a reason not attributable to you? → No → Subsequent completion may be unavailable and the deadline may have expired → Did you complete the missed step within the allowed time after the reason ended? → Yes — within two weeks, or 30 days if abroad; Civil Procedure Act Article 173(1) → Confirm the service method, including public notice, electronic service, or service at a false address → Check how and where the judgment was served → For public notice, confirm when you inspected the case record or received a certified copy → Check when you learned of service → For electronic service, c…

Key points

If you miss a non-extendable period for a reason not attributable to you, you may complete the missed procedural act within two weeks from the day that reason ceased to exist. If you were abroad when the reason ceased to exist, the period is 30 days (Civil Procedure Act, Article 173(1) (민사소송법 제173조 제1항)).
The time when you learned that a judgment had been served by public notice may differ from when you merely learned that a judgment existed. Generally, you may be considered to have learned of service by public notice when you inspected the case record or received a certified copy of the judgment (Cases 2, 3, and 4).
Whether subsequent completion is available should be considered differently when documents from the copy of the complaint through the certified copy of the judgment were served by public notice, and when documents were ordinarily served at first but later served by public notice after service could not be effected during the proceedings (Cases 2 and 3).
If the other party gave a false address and someone else received the litigation documents, the certified copy of the judgment may not have been lawfully served, meaning that the appeal period may not have started. By contrast, in one case, service of a judgment by public notice was held effective even though the requirements for service by public notice were defective. The situations must therefore be distinguished (Cases 5, 17, and 19).
In electronic litigation, an electronic document is deemed served when it is checked after being posted. If it is not checked within one week after notification, it is deemed served when that week has passed. If it could not be checked for a reason not attributable to the party, the missed act may be completed within two weeks from the day that reason ceased to exist (Electronic Documents Act, Article 11(4) (전자문서법 제11조 제4항); Rules on Electronic Litigation, Article 26 (전자소송규칙 제26조)).
If a party did not appeal or file an incidental appeal as to a portion of the first-instance judgment adverse to them, that portion may not be appealed separately to the Supreme Court if it was not reviewed by the appellate court. Conversely, if the other party appealed, the appellee may seek to change an adverse portion by incidental appeal or expand the claim (Cases 23 and 24).
An agreement not to appeal made before judgment must clearly state in writing that no appeal will be filed. The phrase “abide by the outcome of the judgment” alone may not establish an agreement not to appeal (Case 11).
The court to which a case is remanded is, in principle, bound by the determination on which the Supreme Court based its decision to vacate the judgment. However, it may reach the same conclusion as before remand if new arguments or evidence after remand change the facts, or if it makes a determination different from the one given as grounds for vacatur (Civil Procedure Act, Article 436(2) (민사소송법 제436조 제2항); Cases 6 and 21).

Frequently asked questions

Q. I learned belatedly that I lost because service was made by public notice. Can I appeal again?

If you missed the appeal period for a reason not attributable to you, you may be able to file an appeal by subsequent completion. The relevant time may be when you learned that service had been made by service by public notice, rather than merely when you learned that a judgment had been issued. You should generally confirm when you inspected the case record or received a certified copy of the judgment. You must take the required steps within two weeks from the day the reason ceased to exist (Civil Procedure Act, Article 173(1) (민사소송법 제173조 제1항)).

Case 2, Case 3, Case 4

Q. If judgment was entered by public notice after I moved during the lawsuit, can I file an appeal by subsequent completion?

Unlike a case in which a copy of the complaint and other documents were served by public notice from the outset, when a party moves during the proceedings without notifying the court of a change in the place of service and documents are then served by public notice after service cannot be effected, it must be separately considered whether the party had a reason not attributable to them for missing the deadline. Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that subsequent completion will automatically be allowed merely because service was made by public notice.

Case 3

Q. What should I do if the other party sued me using a false address to obtain a judgment, even though they knew my address?

If documents were served at a false address and received by someone other than you, the certified copy of the judgment may not have been lawfully served on you, meaning that the appeal period may not have started. In that case, you may file an appeal, rather than an appeal by subsequent completion or a retrial. If a registration has already been made pursuant to the judgment, you may also separately seek cancellation of the registration. This situation should be distinguished from service by public notice.

Case 5, Case 19

Q. I did not check an electronic litigation document, and the judgment became final. Is there a way to appeal?

Even if you do not check an electronic litigation document, it may be deemed served once one week has passed from the date you were notified that it had been posted. However, if a registered user was unable to check the document within that period for a reason not attributable to them, they may complete the missed procedural act within two weeks from the day that reason ceased to exist. The fact that you did not receive a notification does not, by itself, establish that the requirements have been met.

Case 8

Q. Part of my claim was dismissed at first instance, but I did not appeal. Can I appeal only that part to the Supreme Court after the appellate proceedings?

Even if the other party appealed and the case proceeded to the appellate court, the portion of the first-instance judgment adverse to you that you did not appeal or challenge by incidental appeal may not be subject to review by the appellate court. There is a case in which it was held that a party may not appeal to the Supreme Court solely as to that portion if the appellate court did not rule on it.

Case 23

Q. The other party alone appealed. Can I increase my claim in the appellate court?

If the other party appeals, the appellee may file an incidental appeal before the close of oral arguments or expand the relief sought to claim matters not contested at first instance. The extent to which expanding the claim puts the other party at a disadvantage may be treated as an incidental appeal. However, if the principal appeal is withdrawn or dismissed as improper, the incidental appeal may also lose effect.

Case 24

Q. If we agreed during the lawsuit to “abide by the outcome of the judgment,” can I no longer appeal?

That wording alone may not be sufficient to show that the parties clearly agreed not to appeal. To make an agreement not to appeal before judgment, the agreement must be in writing and must clearly state that no appeal will be filed.

Case 11

Q. Can a court on remand reach a conclusion different from the Supreme Court’s decision vacating and remanding the case?

The court to which a case is remanded is, in principle, bound by the Supreme Court’s factual and legal determinations that formed the basis for vacating the judgment. However, it may reach the same conclusion as before remand if new arguments or evidence after remand change the facts underlying the determination, or if it reaches that conclusion on a different basis while avoiding the determination identified as erroneous in the grounds for vacatur.

Case 6, Case 21

Relevant laws

Civil Procedure Act, Article 34 (민사소송법 제34조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 39 (민사소송법 제39조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 59 (민사소송법 제59조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 64 (민사소송법 제64조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 82(1) (민사소송법 제82조 제1항)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 109(1) (민사소송법 제109조 제1항)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 117(1) (민사소송법 제117조 제1항)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 118 (민사소송법 제118조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 121 (민사소송법 제121조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 173(1) (민사소송법 제173조 제1항)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 186(1) (민사소송법 제186조 제1항)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 194 (민사소송법 제194조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 213(1) (민사소송법 제213조 제1항)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 252 (민사소송법 제252조)
Civil Procedure Act, Article 395 (민사소송법 제395조)

Watch out for

The period for subsequent completion is not uniformly measured from the day you learned of the judgment; it is determined from the day the reason not attributable to you ceased to exist. You should also confirm when you learned that service was made by public notice.
The legal effect and appropriate response may differ when another person received documents sent to a false address and when the court served documents by public notice.
If you wish to contest a portion of the first-instance judgment in the appellate court, confirm that you included it within the matters for review by filing an appeal or incidental appeal.

Struggling with Legal Costs? How Litigation Aid Supports Low-Income Individuals in Korea

Source cases

This guide was compiled by AI from the following Korea Legal Aid Corporation consultation cases (in Korean).

This guide is general legal information about Korean law, not legal advice for your situation. For a specific case, consult a lawyer or the Korea Legal Aid Corporation (call 132 in Korea).