2. The Defendants except Defendant EL and Defendant I (Appointed Party)

A. Defendant EL’s assertion that Defendant EL resided in the domicile of Chuncheon City located at his/her domicile in the first instance judgment, and was not served with the notice of the sentencing date and the authentic copy of the judgment as of March 17, 2017, which was at the time of the first instance trial proceeding, on March 17, 2017, and became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered on March 28, 2018, and thus, Defendant EL’s appeal filed within 14 days thereafter is lawful.

B. According to Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where a party was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, a subsequent completion of procedural acts may be made within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. The term “reasons not attributable to the party” under the pertinent provision refers to the grounds on which the party was unable to comply with the period, even though the party had exercised due diligence to do the procedural acts.

In a case where a document of lawsuit is served in a way of service by public notice as a result of a lawful service of a copy, etc. of complaint, which was being served on the Do, by means of a normal way, and the document of lawsuit was served by public notice, from the first service of a copy of complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to comply with the peremptory period due to a failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the party is responsible for the cause not attributable to the party, and the circumstance that the party was not negligent in failing

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, etc.). C.

Facts of recognition

According to the record, the following facts are recognized:

1. The complaint of this case.