1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

1.The following facts are, in fact, apparent in records or significant to this Court:

The plaintiff filed the suit in this case and entered the "Seoul Yongsan-gu E" as the service place of defendant B, and entered the defendants' address "Seoul Yongsan-gu FF-2 (the name of the road was changed to the defendants' present address according to the name of the road)".

B. The court of first instance served a duplicate of the instant complaint on Defendant C’s resident registration as “Seoul Yongsan-gu G and 2,” which is the domicile of Defendant C, and received documents from H, who is his child on December 8, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, as to Defendant B, the copy of the instant complaint was served to the above service place as stated by the Plaintiff, and on December 8, 2014, I received it.

However, the court of first instance ordered the Plaintiff to vindicate whether the above service place against the Defendant B is the Defendant B’s workplace, and as the Plaintiff failed to vindicate it, the service was served to Defendant B’s domicile but was not served as a closed door.

E. On June 21, 2015, upon the Plaintiff’s application for special service, the enforcement officer affiliated with the Seoul Western District Court directly served the copy of the complaint against the Defendant B at the above address on June 21, 2015, and the written notice of reasons for service prepared by the enforcement officer was served by the Defendant B himself, and the signature and seal was refused.

F. A person who did not submit a reply from the Defendants, the court of first instance served the Defendants with a notice of the date of sentencing as the address at which the said notice was served, and as a result, it was impossible to serve a notice of the date due to the absence of text, the notice of the date was served on August 11, 2015.

G. After that, while the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment as the above domicile, it was impossible to serve the original copy on September 7, 2015 due to the director’s unknown, the court rendered a decision of service by public notice and served the said original copy to the Defendants by means of service by public notice, and the said service by public notice became effective as of September 22, 2015.

H. The Defendants constituted the instant case on December 9, 2015.