1. All appeals by the defendant (appointed party) are dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If a copy of the complaint of related legal principles and the original copy of judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original

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

Judgment

1) According to the purport of the instant records and the entire pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged. ① The first instance court served both a copy of the complaint and a notice of date for pleading against the Defendant and the appointed parties by public notice, and served both the notice of the date for pleading by public notice, and served the first instance judgment on June 20, 2014, and served the original copy of the judgment on the Defendant and the appointed parties by public notice on June 26, 2014. ② On August 13, 2017, the appointed parties served the written questioning of the case on the Non-performance List, etc., at the District Court 2017, the Defendant and the appointed parties became aware of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and the Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records of the instant case on August 21, 2017. ③ The Defendant and the appointed parties filed an appeal of this case on August 23, 2017 each of the instant appeal of this case without the negligence of the Defendant’s first instance court and the appointed parties.