1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. If a copy of a complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal and the original copy of the judgment were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. Thus, it shall be deemed that the party

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044 Decided January 10, 2013). On March 21, 2018, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendants by serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendants and a notice of date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendants on March 21, 2018, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendants by public notice. The Defendants were not aware of the instant lawsuit and the judgment of the first instance court. On September 7, 2018, the Defendants were not aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered by facsimile while communicating with the Plaintiff due to a dispute with the F University, and, on September 19, 2018, the fact that the first instance court filed the instant appeal on September 19, 2018 with the knowledge that the judgment of the first instance was rendered by facsimile.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants could not observe the appeal period, which is a peremptory period, because they were unaware of the progress and result of the instant lawsuit due to any cause not attributable to them. Therefore, the Defendants were sentenced to the judgment of the first instance.