1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff KRW 46,80,000 and the Defendants therefrom from December 25, 2015 to August 2017.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the warden of this case was unable to serve on the defendant's domicile on the plaintiff's resident registration, and the court of the first instance proceeded with the litigation procedure by means of service by public notice, and the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served on

Therefore, the appeal of this case is unlawful since it cannot be deemed that the Defendants failed to observe the period of appeal due to reasons not attributable to the Defendants.

B. Determination 1) If a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants were unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the Defendants were unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them, and thus, they are entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks (30 days if the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term “after the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when either the parties or legal representatives have known of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and barring any other special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the parties or legal representatives were aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the original copy or new original copy of the judgment was received by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7504, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). This likewise applies to the Defendants’ failure to file a report at the place of resident registration (see Supreme Court Decision 268.

A. The court of the first instance is "Seoul Songpa-gu C, Seoul Songpa-gu, 102 Dong, which is a resident registration address of the Defendants at the time that the Plaintiff entered in the complaint as the Defendant's domicile.