1. The appeal by the defendant C shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim against the defendant B expanded by the trial court all.

1. The duplicate of the instant complaint against Defendant C regarding the determination of the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion filed by Defendant C is served on the principal on February 28, 2018, and the original copy of the first instance court served on Defendant C on December 28, 2018, served by public notice of the original judgment on the Defendant C on December 28, 2018, and the fact that Defendant C filed a written appeal for subsequent completion on February 11, 2019 is either a dispute between the parties or is significant in this court.

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason why the party could not observe the period even though the party had exercised generally due care for conducting litigation. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the course of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by public notice, as the case where the documents of lawsuit are served by public notice, from the first delivery of the copy of the 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 investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s judgment on the instant case was served on Defendant C by means of service by public notice, and the Defendant C knew that the instant lawsuit was continued in the first instance court, based on having received a duplicate of the instant complaint directly. In so doing, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant C knew that the instant suit was continued to have been served on the first instance court. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

Even if Defendant C was unable to observe the appeal period because it was unaware of the pronouncement and service of the first instance judgment, this would result in Defendant C’s failure to perform the duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit.