1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the same money as stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendants under the Suwon District Court Branch No. 2013 Ghana64742, the Plaintiff’s domicile in the above complaint, which is the Defendant’s resident registration address at that time, “D, 613 Dong 101 (hereinafter “instant domicile”).

2) On December 12, 2013, the court of first instance received both a copy of the complaint delivered to Defendant B and a copy of the complaint delivered to Defendant C as one’s own position.

3) After the first instance court, both the notice of the date of pleading and the notice of the pronouncement of judgment were sent to the Defendants without being served on the Defendants due to the absence of closure, and on April 18, 2014, the court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the absence of attendance by the Defendants. On May 7, 2014, the service of the original copy of the judgment was not served on the Defendants due to the absence of closure, and the service of the original copy of the judgment became effective on May 22, 2014. 4) The Defendants submitted an appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on July 1, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] The substantial fact in this Court

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1) Defendant B did not receive a notice of the date of pleading and the date of sentencing from the court of first instance, which was the first instance, at the time when the said Defendant was absent, and the court of first instance rendered a judgment after closing the pleadings and served the original copy of the judgment, and thus, the Defendant could not be able to comply with the period of appeal due to the Defendant’s failure to know that the judgment was rendered by the first instance court. Accordingly, the Defendant’s subsequent appeal is lawful. 2) Although Defendant C’s domicile was at the time when the court of first instance served a duplicate of the complaint on Defendant C, the Defendant C’s domicile was at the domicile of the instant case at the time when the copy of the complaint was served, the fact was that the Defendant B resided at the above domicile, and the