1. All appeals filed by the deceased H for a request to resume a lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are the deceased H.

Ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the appeal of this case.

As the basic principles of the Civil Procedure Act, which require the rescue of the plaintiff and the defendant as the defendant, are inappropriate, and the substantial litigation relationship cannot be achieved, the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered in such a situation.

Even if the judgment is null and void, and the appeal or request for a lawsuit by the heir of the defendant who is the deceased of the judgment is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da34041 Decided January 29, 2015). The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit on July 2, 2010. The fact that the network H had already died on July 22, 2010, and thereafter a duplicate of the instant complaint was served by means of service by public notice to the network H on February 18, 201. The first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 19, 2012 at the end of the pleadings by serving a notice, etc. on the network H by public notice, and the fact that the document was served to the network H on January 20, 2012 is apparent in records.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance that declared the deceased deceased He before the instant lawsuit was filed as the defendant is null and void as a matter of course. ACH, AEK, AEK, AEL, and AEM’s subsequent appeal or request for continuation of the lawsuit are unlawful.

Therefore, the appeal by the requester for the proceedings of the deceased H is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.