beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period despite the party’s exercise of the duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of the lawsuit and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of public notice. In a case where the documents of lawsuit are served by public notice during the process of the lawsuit, the first copy of the complaint was served by public notice, and thus the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to observe the peremptory
(2) According to Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the document may be served by means of delivering the document to a person who is capable of making a reasonable judgment, such as a person living together with the person who actually belongs to the same household as the person to be served (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da16082, Jul. 22, 2004; 2006Da3844, Mar. 10, 2006). Meanwhile, the document may be served by means of delivering the document to a person who is capable of making a reasonable judgment, such as a person living together with the person who actually belongs to the same household as the person to be served. The “place to be served” in this context is not necessarily confined to the person’s resident registration, and the person who actually lives together with the person to be served with the same household as the person to be served (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2000Ma5732, Oct. 28, 2000).
(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012). B.
The defendants' incidental appeal is legitimate, and the purport of the whole pleadings is significant in this court or in the entry of Gap evidence No. 10.