2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

A. On July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants on July 13, 2016. The first instance court served the Defendants with a duplicate of the instant complaint, the guide of the lawsuit, etc., but did not serve as a closed text absence. On November 29, 2016, the first instance court served the Defendants with litigation documents, such as a duplicate of the instant complaint and the notice of the date of pleading, by means of service by public notice. 2) On May 19, 2017, the first instance court sentenced the Defendants to win the lawsuit on May 19, 2017, and the said certified copy was served by public notice on the Defendants on May 30, 2017.

3) The Plaintiff became aware of the judgment of the first instance court around August 10, 2017. (4) Defendant A filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records of the instant case on August 16, 2017. The Defendants filed the instant appeal for subsequent completion on August 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, substantial facts in the trial

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the procedural acts in his negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." The first instance court's "when the cause ceases to exist" under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act where a service by public notice was rendered by the court of first instance refers to the time when the defendant was not simply known of the fact that the judgment was rendered, but the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant read the records of the case or received the original copy of the judgment by public notice. However, if it is deemed that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was made, and there are special circumstances to recognize