1. Defendant B’s appeal shall be dismissed;

2. The part against Defendant A and C among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

3. The plaintiff.

1. Determination on the legality of Defendant B’s subsequent appeal

(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent or obvious to this Court in the records:

(1) On August 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant B, and Defendant B served the copy of the instant complaint on November 2, 2015, which is one’s domicile, on the part of the enforcement officer, on the service of enforcement officer, on the part of the instant complaint, as well as on November 27, 2015. The Plaintiff submitted a written answer on November 27, 2015, stating his address as E Apartment 2, Dong 202 in the East Sea.

(2) On December 6, 2016, the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment on Defendant B’s domicile, and served the original copy of the judgment on December 17, 2017 due to the absence of closure, and served it by public notice. The service became effective as of January 17, 2017.

(3) Defendant B submitted the instant written appeal for the subsequent completion on July 26, 2017, which was two weeks after the date of entry into force.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason why the party could not observe the period even though the party had exercised generally due diligence for conducting litigation. In a case where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by service by public notice, the service of documents of lawsuit by public notice is different from the first service of copies of a complaint by public notice, and thus, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit.

Thus, if a party fails to examine the progress of such a lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory term, it cannot be said that the party is due to any cause not attributable to him/her.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012). C.

Judgment

(1) In light of the above legal principles, Defendant B, as recognized earlier, is not a method of service by public notice, but a copy of the complaint of this case.