Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Co-Defendant D, E, F, and Defendant B Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant D, respectively, against the Defendants.

Reasons

1. Subsequent completion of procedural acts is able to be done within two weeks from the date on which the cause ceases to exist if it is impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to the subsequent completion of procedural acts. Here, “when the cause ceases to exist” means the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the original of the judgment was served by public notice, not from the time when the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but from the time when it was served by public notice (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da41560, Feb. 28, 2008). Defendant C was served at the first instance court as the second instance court 212 nautical miles and was present at the first instance court from the date of pleading until the date of pleading. However, Defendant C was removed from the subordinate prison of the first instance court to Seoul, during the second instance court’s continuation of procedural proceedings, and it was also impossible to receive the said original of the judgment from the court 10th instance without being notified of the fact that the original was returned to the court 120th court.