1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

(a) Recognizing that the following facts are apparent in the records:

On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants.

On January 4, 2016, the court of first instance sent the copy of the complaint of this case and the litigation guide of this case, etc. to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City K building and the execution officer under the service of enforcement officer. On January 14, 2016, the defendant A was directly served on the defendant, and the defendant B was served on the defendant A, his spouse, at the above domicile.

Since then, the court of first instance, where the Defendants did not submit a written reply, etc., sent a written notice of the date of pronouncement of a judgment without pleading to the above address on March 15, 2017, but returned to the absence of closed text, and the court of first instance sent the said notice on March 27, 2017 and sent it for delivery.

On April 14, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendants in favor of the Plaintiff, and on April 25, 2017, the said judgment was served to the Defendants by means of service by public notice, and became final and conclusive on May 25, 2017.

The Defendants filed a subsequent appeal on July 4, 2017.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the litigation in his negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." The first instance court's judgment "when the cause ceases to exist" under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the time when the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by service by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant read the records of the case or received the original copy of the judgment by public notice. However, the defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was