1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of judgment regarding the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time when such cause ceases to exist

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy

(1) In light of the following facts, the Defendants were unable to comply with the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the Defendants, by failing to know the delivery of the judgment of the first instance without negligence, on the grounds that the Defendants were unable to comply with the period of appeal, in light of the following facts, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of the evidence No. 2010Da75044, Jan. 10,

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date on which the Defendants became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice is lawful.

The court of first instance rendered a judgment on March 19, 2015 after serving the Defendants with a duplicate of the complaint of this case and a writ of summons of the date of pleading by service by public notice. The judgment was also served by service by public notice.

B. The Defendants are not aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice. On June 29, 2015, the Defendants were from the Plaintiff.