1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff and the succeeding intervenor are against the defendant.

1. On June 30, 2015, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, where both a duplicate of the complaint of this case and a notice of the date of pleading, etc. against the Defendant were served by public notice and the pleadings were in progress, and on June 30, 2015, the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice; the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor asserted the interruption of extinctive prescription by the judgment of the first instance court in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Da520542, which was brought against the Defendant; and on February 1, 2019, the written brief containing the foregoing assertion was served on the Defendant; and the fact that the Defendant filed the instant appeal for subsequent completion on February 13, 2019 with the knowledge that the first instance judgment was pronounced by filing an application for perusal and duplication of the records of this case on February 7, 2019.

In full view of the above facts of recognition, the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case due to a cause not attributable to himself. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist, is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 201, the Defendant purchased Fri-wheeled Vehicles (hereinafter “instant Maritime Vehicles”) with a heavy weight.

B. Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial (hereinafter “D”) is the Defendant’s relative, and around 03:00 on June 14, 201, entered the instant sea vehicle in violation of the signal signal at the 85-1 East-dong, Young-dong at the time of Guri-ri, by driving the instant sea vehicle on the back seat, and thereby resulting in a collision with the Nonparty’s vehicle that makes a normal left-hand turn on the left-hand side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The instant accident sustained serious injury E.D.

In accordance with Article 30(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the instant sea-free vehicle was a non-insurance vehicle, and the Plaintiff is in accordance with Article 5(1) of the same Act.