1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

We examine the legitimacy of the defendants' subsequent appeal ex officio in determining the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion.

Although the original copy of the judgment in the first instance is served on the defendant by public notice, the requirements are not satisfied.

Even if the service is valid, the judgment of the court of first instance becomes formally final and conclusive due to the limit of the appeal period, and the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of appeal is determined separately by the defendant's failure to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.

(2) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A party’s failure to perform his/her procedural act” refers to a party’s failure to comply with the period despite having been generally required to perform the procedural act. In cases where the service of litigation documents during the process of a lawsuit is impossible through service by public notice as a result of the impossibility of being served by public notice, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning. Thus, if the parties did not know of the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there was no negligence. This obligation is borne, regardless of whether the parties were present and present at the date for pleading and present at the date for pleading, whether the parties were notified of the date for pleading following the date for pleading, or whether the legal representative was appointed.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3844, Mar. 10, 2006). The following facts are either a dispute between the parties or a record.

On April 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants. On April 7, 2016, the court of first instance sent a duplicate of the complaint to “Seoul Yangcheon-gu E-Ba 5j 303, the Defendants’ domicile, by mail delivery,” and the duplicate of the complaint on April 14, 2016.