1. The supplementary intervenor's participation is permitted.

2. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

1. Determination on the legality of subsequent appeal

A. If the original copy, the original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, 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 may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after 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. In ordinary cases, barring any special circumstance, it shall 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 or received a new original of the judgment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da41318, Oct. 17, 2013). B.

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance can find the following facts: ① (a) the court of first instance, after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendants, a notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the date of pleading by public notice and proceeding the pleadings on November 30, 198; and (b) rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on December 21, 198; (c) the original judgment was served on the Defendants by public notice; and (c) the said judgment was final and conclusive as of February 25, 1989; and (c) the Defendants filed an appeal subsequent to subsequent completion on October 14, 2015 after being perused with the original copy of the first instance judgment issued on October 12, 2015.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor submitted a letter to the effect that Defendant D should not be negligent in performing the liquidator’s duties, which became aware of the final and conclusive judgment of the first instance court, and that the Defendants had already known that the said judgment was delivered by service by public notice at least two weeks prior to filing an subsequent appeal.