1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in the judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall be co-defendant A and C of the first instance trial.

1. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal is unlawful as it has been raised by the subsequent supplement of the appeal of this case to the extent that the subsequent supplement of the appeal of this case is excessive.

If the original copy, etc. of a complaint is served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is not aware 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 any cause not attributable to him/her and thus, may file an appeal subsequent to subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

On June 1, 2004, the court of first instance rendered a judgment on June 1, 2004 after the hearing was conducted by serving a duplicate of complaint against the defendant and the notice of the date for pleading by public notice. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice. The plaintiff succeeding to the defendant who received the claim from the plaintiff was brought a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the acquisition amount under Seoul Central District Court 2014Da5084162 on April 1, 2014. The defendant presented a written complaint on June 21, 2014 and stated the fact that the plaintiff succeeding to the defendant was issued the first instance judgment of this case through the legal brief on January 12, 2015 only after the plaintiff succeeding to the defendant was served on the defendant on the part of the defendant on January 16, 2015, including the number No. 1 through No. 7577, Jan. 26, 2015.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is evident that there is a reason why the defendant could not comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the judgment of the first instance court on January 16, 2015, which served on the defendant's side the preparatory documents delivered on January 12, 2015, was served by public notice.