1. The appeal by the defendant C shall be dismissed;

2. Defendant B’s appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. (1) According to the main text of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, in a case where a party was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist may be supplemented.

(2) If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent payment within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy

(3) In a case where a document of lawsuit cannot be served in a usual way while the lawsuit is pending, and is served by public notice, the document of lawsuit may not be served in a way of serving by public notice. As such, inasmuch as a party’s failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to observe the peremptory period due to a failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the party’s failure to observe the peremptory period is attributable to any cause not attributable to the party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98423, Apr. 25, 2013).