1. The part against the defendant B in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2...

1. On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiffs asserted that the appeal of this case is unlawful, since the Defendants filed a subsequent appeal after two weeks thereafter, when the notice of the decision to commence compulsory auction of real estate was served on Defendant B on October 30, 2015.

However, barring any special circumstance, if a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware 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. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any special circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases where the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da30427 Decided August 22, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7504, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013, etc.). In the instant case, according to the respective descriptions in subparagraphs B through 3 (including each number), and considerable facts in this court, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim after the court served a copy, etc. of the complaint against the Defendants by means of service by public notice. The original copy of the judgment of the first instance also served on the Defendants by means of service by public notice, and the Defendants received the original copy of the judgment upon request of the court of first instance on November 5, 2015.