The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. 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/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.”

Here, the “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the grounds for the party’s failure to comply with the period despite the party’s due diligence to perform the procedural acts, and the party’s assertion and proof should be asserted in the party’s side to supplement the procedural acts.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). Meanwhile, according to Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a document may be served by delivering a document to a person with an intelligence to make a reasonable judgment as a person living together, if the person was not present at the place of service other than the working place.

In such cases, in order to have an intelligence to distinguish corruption, it is not necessary to have an ability to understand the validity of the general judicial system or procedural acts, but to understand the purpose of service and at least to expect that the document received is delivered to the person to receive the document.

(See Supreme Court Order 2005Ma1039 Decided December 5, 2005, etc.). 2. The record reveals that the original copy of the judgment was delivered to Plaintiff D on October 11, 2010 at the Plaintiffs’ domicile, and that Plaintiff D was 15 years of age and 5 months of age at the time.

As such, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff D was a minor at the time, but it had the ability to expect other Plaintiffs to deliver the documents understood and delivered to the purport of service. Therefore, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the original judgment was legitimately served on the Plaintiffs.