대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
On October 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on the recognition of the determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal.
A copy of the complaint of this case, a statement of litigation guidance, and a written reply
On January 18, 2015, the summary table was served as F in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant’s domicile, and G, the Defendant’s spouse, signed as the recipient of delivery.
The court of first instance, where the Defendant did not submit a written response, served a notice of the date of rendering a ruling of non- pleadings at the same address, but was not served on March 10, 2015 due to the absence of closure.
On March 17, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff after sending and delivering the above notice.
Although the original copy of the above judgment is not served as a closed question absence, the court of first instance served the original copy of the above judgment by public notice and became effective on April 30, 2015.
On June 8, 2017, the defendant submitted a subsequent petition of appeal against the judgment of the first instance.
[Ground of recognition] In a case where a person to receive a service is not present at the domicile or temporary domicile of a person who has no dispute, the service of documents may be made by delivering documents to a person who is man of intelligence, as a "person living together."
(Supplementary service under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Here, “a person living together” refers to a person who actually belongs to the same household as the person receiving a service and actually lives together with the same household (Supreme Court Order 2000Ma5732 Decided October 28, 200). The service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case against the Defendant is lawful as a supplementary service under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
The defendant asserted that the plaintiff was unable to know the fact that the lawsuit of this case was brought to his spouse because he suffered approximately KRW 1 billion in business losses in early February 2014 and caused about KRW 200 million to fraud, and that he did not know the fact that the lawsuit of this case was brought to him.
However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.