1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On April 22, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on April 22, 2016, after both a duplicate of the complaint of this case against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading, etc., against the Defendant, were served by public notice in its judgment on the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, and the pleading was proceeding. The original copy of the first instance judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice, and the fact that the Defendant’s legal representative filed an appeal for subsequent completion on the same day with the knowledge that the judgment was served by public notice on June 22, 2016, is obvious

In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period, due to failure to know the progress and result of the instant lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). Therefore, the subsequent appeal filed within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist is lawful.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the lawyer D, who is the legal representative of the defendant, filed an appeal by altering the letter of delegation in the name of the defendant. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the appeal of this case is unlawful because it was filed by a person who does not have the right of attorney.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements and images of Eul 7 through 11 (including each number), it is reasonable to deem that Eul has the right of representation in the lawsuit of this case as lawful, and the plaintiff's above assertion is groundless.

F, which was the head of the original church, of the fact of recognizing the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, stated that the member himself/herself can take part only in the restoration of his/her reputation, and that he/she can take part in the restoration of his/her reputation. In addition, F, who was the head of the original church, sees his/her believers around 1960.