1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion Defendants did not serve a duplicate of the instant complaint and the notice of the date for pleading, etc., and at the time, the Defendants were living together with their children, there is a high probability that they made a false statement that they were directors. Therefore, the Defendants could have known the fact that the judgment of the first instance was pronounced.

In addition, Defendant D continued to reside in the address where the copy, etc. of the complaint of this case was served, so it seems to have found the certificate of postal custody.

Therefore, the Defendants filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case more than ten years after having known that the judgment of the first instance was rendered at the time. Therefore, the said subsequent completion appeal is unlawful.

B. In a case where the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice, the term "when the reason ceases to exist" under Article 173 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act means when the defendant was not aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, it should be deemed that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant perused the records of the case or received the original copy of the judgment by public notice. However, in a case where it is deemed that the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice and there are special circumstances that can naturally be recognizable by social norms, it is reasonable to view that the reason that the judgment became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was served by public

(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Da224658 Decided July 25, 2019, and Supreme Court Decision 98Da43533 Decided February 9, 199, etc.).

Judgment

In light of the above legal principles, this case.