1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

to the extent of the property inherited from the net F (G).

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the causes for which the party could not observe the period even though he/she had performed the duty of care generally to conduct the litigation

However, in a case where the original judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without fault. If the Defendant was sentenced from the beginning without knowing the continuation of a lawsuit and the Defendant became aware of such fact only after the original judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). B.

According to the records of this case, each defendant's name is printed in each receipt column of each written complaint against the defendants, a guide for litigation, a copy of the application for correction of the indication of the party, and each receipt column of each written application for alteration of the purpose of the claim as of January 21, 2014, and each written statement or sealing column of each written execution officer's report is printed, and each signature or sealing column is printed. However, in the reference column of each written report as to each of the above written reports, each of the above written statements is written as "the service impossible because he/she has made a statement that he/she is not aware of the identity of the present resident H (or residence for at least 45 years) and that he/she is not a resident of the same lawsuit," and