1. Each appeal by the Defendants shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 5, 2016, and the instant warden served each enforcement officer on April 9, 2016 to Defendant B Religious Organization C D (hereinafter “Defendant church”) and Defendant D.

(ary officer: I.B.).

However, the Defendants did not submit a written response, and on May 26, 2016, the court of first instance sent the Defendants a written notice of the pronouncement date of a non-litigation to the Defendants, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the date of the declaration notified ( June 9, 2016).

After all, the court of first instance, where the original copy of the judgment was not served by "the identity of the recipient", ordered the Defendants to serve the original copy by public notice on June 21, 2016, and the service of the original copy by public notice was effective on July 60, 2016.

C. Defendant D submitted a subsequent petition of appeal regarding the first instance judgment to the court of first instance on August 12, 2016, while Defendant D submitted a subsequent petition of appeal to each court of first instance on September 2, 2016.

【Ground for recognition】 Records of substantial facts in the court, Gap evidence 7

2. Whether the appeal filed by the Defendants is lawful

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party is not liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though he/she had exercised general duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where the document of lawsuit cannot be served by means of public notice while the lawsuit was in the course of litigation, and served by means of public notice, it would be different from the case where the document of lawsuit was served by public notice from the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be deemed that the party is due to any reason for which the peremptory period is not responsible.