1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated party shall be dismissed in entirety.

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

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. As long as the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court was served on the defendant by means of service by public notice, the requirements are incomplete.

Even if the service is valid, the judgment of the court of first instance becomes formally final and conclusive due to the limit of the appeal period, and the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of appeal is determined separately by the defendant's failure to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

(2) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A party’s failure to perform his/her procedural act” refers to a party’s failure to comply with the period despite having been generally required to perform the procedural act. In cases where the service of litigation documents during the process of a lawsuit is impossible through service by public notice as a result of the impossibility of being served by public notice, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning. Thus, if the parties did not know of the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there was no negligence. This obligation is borne, regardless of whether the parties were present and present at the date for pleading and present at the date for pleading, whether the parties were notified of the date for pleading following the date for pleading, or whether the legal representative was appointed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844 Decided March 10, 2006, etc.). B.

Judgment

ex officio, the following facts are clear in the records of this case, or are significant in this court:

① On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On November 6, 2014, the court of first instance, which was recorded in the Defendant’s complaint, duplicate of the complaint and the written guidance of the lawsuit with the “Yandong-dong-ro 303 and 9th 12 (Stangdong-dong and Mt. Mt. digital ballast)”, which is the Defendant’s domicile recorded in the complaint on November 6, 2014.