1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

b) purport of the claim and appeal;

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the records of this case's existence of ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the appeal for the completion of the appeal, and according to the purport of the whole pleadings.

On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants.

On August 1, 2016, the first instance court served each copy of the complaint and the litigation guide, etc. at the time of the Defendants’ domicile respectively. Defendant C was served on the mother living at the domicile on August 8, 2016 through AM, and Defendant D was served on his own on August 3, 2016, respectively.

On September 19, 2016, the first instance court served the notice of the sentencing date on the Defendants’ domicile, and dealt with the service of the notice to the Defendants by sending the notice to the Defendants, if the notice is not served due to the absence of closure and the addressee’s unknown address.

On October 13, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment that fully accepts the claims filed by the Defendants against the Defendants, and served the authentic copy of the judgment on October 14, 2008 and October 27, 2016 to the Defendants’ addresses on two occasions, but all were not served due to the absence of closure, and served the authentic copy of the judgment by public notice on November 9, 2016, and on November 24, 2016, service of the authentic copy of the judgment to the Defendants became effective.

On February 20, 2017, the Defendants requested by Defendant C to inspect the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance on the same basis, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on February 22, 2017.

The defendants asserted that the defendants were served with a duplicate of the complaint, but the civil procedure was first difficult and did not respond properly. After that, the court did not give any notice, and did not receive any notice from the court, and the court did not know of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, such as judgment, etc., and then filed an appeal to correct the appeal, and the appeal to correct the appeal is lawful.

The parties to the relevant legal principles are no longer responsible if they could not observe the peremptory term due to reasons not attributable.