1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the subsequent appeal in this case is unlawful, as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal.

Unless there exist special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period 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. Here, the "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when 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. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware that the judgment was served by public notice only

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). The first instance court (hereinafter “Defendant C”) served the Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) and Defendant D by means of service, such as a copy of the complaint and a notice of the date for pleading, etc., and proceeded with the pleading. On December 2, 2015, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant C to the judgment on December 2, 2015. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendants by means of service by public

The Plaintiff asserted that the first instance judgment could have known the fact that Defendant D had been served by means of service by public notice when he was investigated as a suspicion of embezzlement for Defendant D’s Grand Vehicle E. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the Health Team, Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 12, and Eul evidence No. 12, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant D on Nov. 12, 2015 for the suspicion of embezzlement for the Grand Ireland E vehicle and notified Defendant D of the non-prosecution disposition on Apr. 12, 2016.