1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall be jointly and severally with E and F to the intervenor accepting the plaintiff 30,133.

1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. In a case where the original copy, etc. of a complaint of related legal principles was served by public notice, barring special circumstances, 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 from the date such cause ceases to exist.

Here, the term “when a cause ceases to exist” 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 judgment was delivered by public notice, and, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice only when the records of the case were perused, or

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410 delivered on October 24, 1997). B.

The defendant asserts that the defendant's appeal is lawful in view of the fact that both the service of the complaint and the service of the original copy of the judgment were made by public notice in the first instance court.

Plaintiff

In the case of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Hadan3724, Daejeon District Court Decision 2010Hadan3724, the assignee filed a petition for bankruptcy by attaching the Plaintiff to the list of creditors (previously named “B”) and received a decision of dismissal on May 8, 2012. Thus, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the existence of the joint and several surety obligation

The following reasons are to be determined by the Defendant’s assertion by the Plaintiff’s assignee to the effect that subsequent appeal is unlawful, because the Defendant knows the existence of his/her joint and several surety obligation.

(c) the facts under the recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are significant in this Court.

(1) On November 4, 1998, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “B”) was the Plaintiff Company.