1. The appeal filed by the heir (Appointed Party) of Defendant A shall be dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant A.

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.

This legal doctrine likewise applies to the case where the defendant died before a duplicate of the complaint is served (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da34041, Jan. 29, 2015). The plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on April 5, 2007. The fact that the defendant Gap died on July 11, 2007, before the duplicate of the complaint of this case is served, and thereafter, the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant Gap by public notice on October 25, 2007, and the first instance court served the notice of the date for pleading against the defendant Gap by public notice on December 14, 2007 at the end of the pleading, and the judgment was served by public notice to the defendant on December 25, 2007.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which declared the deceased deceased deceased before the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint after the instant lawsuit, as the defendant, is null and void as a matter of course, and the subsequent appeal filed by the heir B of the Defendant deceased Party (Appointed Party) is unlawful.

If so, the appeal by the heir (appointed party) B of the defendant net A is unlawful, so it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.