1. The appeal by Defendant E shall be dismissed;

2. Each appeal filed by Defendant B, limited liability C, and D is dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of appeal after Defendant E’s subsequent completion

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the relevant legal doctrine refers to a reason why a party is unable to observe the period even though the party fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct 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 parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice. Thus, if a party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period due to a failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed as a cause not attributable to the party. In addition, such obligation shall be borne, regardless of whether the party was present and present at the date for pleading, whether the party was notified of the date for pleading after the date for pleading, or whether the attorney was appointed, regardless of whether or not the party was appointed.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da211886 Decided October 30, 2014, etc.) B.

Judgment

1) Defendant E argues to the effect that, if the original copy of the judgment against the above Defendant became impossible to serve, it is inappropriate for the court of first instance to have immediately rendered a decision by public notice without taking any particular measures, even though it had been served again by means of supplementary service, etc., so it cannot be said that the Defendant was negligent in not knowing the fact of the judgment of first instance. Accordingly, Defendant E asserted to the effect that the subsequent appeal filed by the Defendant within 14 days after confirming the existence of the judgment of first instance on January 23, 2017, was lawful. 2) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants on March 8, 2016, and the court of first instance is the address of Defendant E as stated in the instant written complaint.