1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. The Defendants asserted that they were not aware of the fact that they failed to receive the original copy of the instant complaint and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court, and that they were not aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was pronounced.

The defendants could not observe the appeal period against the judgment of the court of first instance due to any cause not attributable to them, and since they filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the case within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist, the appeal for the subsequent completion of the case is lawful.

B. The Plaintiff’s mother of the Defendants asserted that D’s East E was a cohabitant and received a duplicate of the instant complaint, etc.

The case where the Defendants did not file an appeal within the period of appeal does not constitute a case where the Defendants could not observe the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Defendants.

C. Determination 1) In principle, the service of documents in civil procedure is to be made by delivering a certified copy or duplicate of the documents to the person to whom the service was made (Article 178(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). If the person to whom the service was to be made is not present at the place of service other than the work place, documents may be delivered to his office worker, employee, or cohabitant (Article 186(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act). The document may be delivered to the person with mental capacity to make a reasonable judgment (Article 186(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act). According to the following: (a) the court of first instance compiled the whole purport of the pleading as a whole; and (b) the court of first instance delivered a copy of the complaint to E who is the defendant's mother on May 16, 2008 at the place of service; (c) the defendant's domicile at the time of service with the above service place and the notice on the resident registration at the court of first instance was sent to E-108, 20.7