철거 등
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;
(a)The following facts in fact of recognition are apparent in the record or obvious to this court:
1) On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants, and Defendant C served a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendants on December 30, 2016, as well as a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendants, who are his spouse, on January 3, 2017. The Defendants submitted a written response to the first instance court on February 20, 2017. The Defendants were present at the first instance court and the second instance court as Defendant D’s representative, respectively, on the date for pleading, and received notice that the date for pronouncement was 0:00 on October 12, 2017.
3) On October 12, 2017, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the entire claim of the Plaintiffs. On November 14, 2017 and November 22, 2017, the said judgment was intended to serve the Defendants with the original copy on two occasions, but all were not served with the absence of closure. On December 5, 2017, the said original copy of the judgment was served by public notice on the Defendants on December 20, 2017, and the service became effective against the Defendants on December 20, 2017.
B. 1) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “A party’s “reasons for which he/she is not liable” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s exercise of the duty of care to conduct the said procedural acts. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of public notice. As such, the first party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit even if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party’s failure to comply with the peremptory period is attributable to any cause not attributable to the party (see Supreme Court Decision 10Da111, Oct. 1, 2012