beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of a complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist" here refers to the time when the parties or legal representatives are informed of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than to the time when the parties or legal representatives became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, in ordinary cases, barring any special circumstances, the parties or legal representatives become aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only
B. On July 24, 2015, the first instance judgment was rendered on July 24, 2015 after a written complaint of the first instance court and notice of date for pleading, etc. were served by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendants by public notice. On May 19, 2016, the Defendants submitted a written appeal for the completion of the instant appeal to the first instance court on April 27, 2016, and received the text of the first instance judgment after receiving the written examination of the case on the defaulters’s list, etc. on April 27, 2016.
According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants, around April 27, 2016, received the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance, was conducted by means of service by public notice and the judgment of the court of first instance was also served by means of service by public notice. Thus, the appeal of this case filed on May 19, 2016 by the two weeks thereafter, satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.