1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;

1. If the legality of an appeal for subsequent completion, a copy of a complaint, an original copy of judgment, etc., were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the reason ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative

(2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment citing all the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant on July 22, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint of this case and a writ of summons on the date of pleading by public notice on January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, Jan. 10, 2013). The court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant on July 22, 2014, and served the defendant by public notice. The defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice only after obtaining an original copy of the judgment on December 28, 2015, and the fact that the defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment on the same day is apparent in the record, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant'

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The facts that the Plaintiffs were employed as the Defendant’s employee and retired on December 7, 2013, and the Defendant retired to the Plaintiff on November 201, 2013, the Defendant’s wage of KRW 2,500,000 against the Plaintiff, and the wage of KRW 564,516, the total amount of KRW 3,064,516, and KRW 3,516, and Plaintiff B.