1. All appeals by Defendant C against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by Defendant C.

purport.

1. Whether the appeal of this case is lawful

A. According to the requirements of subsequent appeal under the Civil Procedure Act, the appeal shall be made within two weeks from the date on which the judgment was served (Article 396(1)), and where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them, the appeal may be supplemented within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.

(1) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s due diligence for conducting the said procedural acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da2224, Mar. 10, 1987; 97Da50152, Oct. 2, 1998); and the term “party” includes not only the party himself/herself, but also the attorney and his/her representative’s assistant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da9622, Jun. 11, 199).

Judgment

According to the records, Defendant C is recognized to have filed an appeal by subsequent completion of the judgment of the first instance on May 18, 2016, when the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served on the attorney of the first instance court on April 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant subsequent appeal”).

The defendant C's assertion is that the attorney of the first instance court, who he appointed, tried to receive a petition of appeal to the court later due to the wrong guidance on the appeal period to him, but the appeal period has already expired, and thus, the defendant C filed an subsequent appeal without being able to do so.

According to the records of this case, Defendant C was served with the complaint of this case on April 8, 2015, and the attorney of the first instance court appointed by Defendant C appeared at the date of pleading in the first instance trial, and received the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance on April 29, 2016 by means of not going through service by public notice, and thus, Defendant C received the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance on April 29, 2016.