2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

A. The Defendants, after receiving the first instance judgment on September 16, 2015, submitted each of the instant subsequent appeals against the instant judgment on October 1, 2015, October 7, 2015, and October 12, 2015, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ legal representative did not accurately inform the date on which they received the first instance judgment.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to comply with a peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts in which he/she neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” Here, “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s due care to conduct the procedural acts in question, and the party includes not only the party himself/herself, but also his/her legal representative and assistants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da9622, Jun. 11, 199).

In light of these legal principles, the defendants' attorney did not accurately inform the defendants of the date on which the court of first instance was served with the court of first instance merely because it is an internal circumstance of the defendants and cannot be viewed as a reason not attributable to the defendants. In addition, as long as the defendants did not confirm their attorney the date of service of the court of first instance, the defendants are negligent in failing to exercise due diligence for conducting the litigation of this case, so the defendants cannot be deemed to have complied with the appeal period due to any reason not attributable to them, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for the subsequent completion.

2...