1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is modified as follows. A.

Defendant E is co-defendant D of the first instance trial.

1. On September 6, 2013, the first instance court: (a) served the Defendants with a duplicate of the complaint of this case and a notice of the date of pleading by public notice; and (b) rendered a judgment on September 6, 2013; and (c) served with the original copy of the judgment by public notice.

The Defendants asserted that, after being issued an original copy of the judgment on July 28, 2016, the judgment of the first instance court became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by service by public notice, and submitted to the first instance court a written appeal seeking the revocation of the judgment of the first instance on the same day, the fact that the court submitted

Therefore, this constitutes a case where the Defendants were unable to comply with the peremptory appeal period, due to a cause not attributable to the Defendants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). Since the Defendants filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist, the instant appeal by the Defendants is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. Defendant C was the head of the entertainment establishment operated by the Plaintiff A of the first instance trial (hereinafter “A”), and Defendant E was the head of the said entertainment establishment. Defendant E was the head of the said entertainment establishment, and Defendant B and D was the female employees employed by the Defendants.

B. On November 16, 2010, A lent KRW 30 million to B below Defendant E’s joint and several sureties.

B decided to repay the above borrowed money immediately upon request of A.

C. A around April 19, 201, around April 19, 2011, lent KRW 70 million to Defendant C under Defendant E’s joint and several sureties.

Defendant C decided to immediately repay the above loan upon the request of Defendant C. D.

A around May 4, 2011, around May 4, 201, lent KRW 25 million to D below Defendant E’s joint and several sureties.

D decided to repay the above borrowed money immediately upon A's request.

E. As A died on August 25, 2015, the Plaintiffs, who were their children, succeeded to the rights and obligations of A in proportion to 1/2 of each of them.

【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, and Gap evidence 1 to 3 respectively.