1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

to the extent of property inherited from the net F.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe 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. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" "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. In ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 delivered on February 24, 2006).

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the first instance court served the Defendants with a copy of complaint, notice of date for pleading, etc. as to the Defendants by service by public notice, and rendered a judgment of partially accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on April 27, 2016, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendants by public notice. On December 8, 2017, the Defendants filed an appeal for subsequent completion on December 22, 2017, prior to the lapse of two weeks from the knowledge of the fact that the instant judgment was served by public notice, while inspecting the records of the case on December 8, 2017, the Defendants were aware of the fact that the instant judgment was served by public notice. Thus, the Defendants’ instant appeal for subsequent completion is a lawful appeal that satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the wholesale and retail business of food, ice, and beverage with the trade name of “E” and the ASEAN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ASEAN”) runs ice and wholesale and retail business.