1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is the representative C.

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him and the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers not to the case where the party or legal representative did not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but to the case where the party or legal representative knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative knew of the fact that the judgment was served

(Supreme Court Decision 200Meu87 Delivered on September 5, 2000). B.

According to the records, the fact that documents, such as the duplicate of the complaint, and the original copy of the judgment, were served on the defendant by means of service by public notice, the defendant received the judgment of the first instance court on January 24, 2017, and the fact that the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on February 6, 2017.

C. The copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint at the court of first instance was served by means of service by public notice against the defendant. Since then, the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the defendant received the judgment of first instance, the appeal for subsequent completion of the case is lawful.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff was a higher-class organization for the instant lawsuit in around 2015 and has no substance as a clan. Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed by an organization with no capacity to be a party.

B. Determination A.