손해배상(기)
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
The facts under the recognition of the judgment on the legitimacy of the appeal for the subsequent completion are obvious in the records or are significant in this court.
The plaintiffs received the complaint of this case on November 29, 2006, and the court of first instance, the defendant's domicile, carried out the mail service of the copy of the complaint and the litigation guide (hereinafter "duplicate, etc.") with Seongdong-gu 101 Dong-dong 802, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, which is the defendant's domicile, and was impossible to serve as a non-explicated copy, etc. due to the absence of closure.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed an application for special service, and the court of first instance rendered the service of a copy, etc. of the complaint to the same address as the plaintiffs' request on February 28, 2007. The defendant himself received the copy, etc. of the complaint directly from the same address on March 11, 2007 and signed the receipt column.
However, as the defendant did not submit a written response, the court of first instance conducted a post service of the notice of the date of the pronouncement of pleadings to the same address, which was impossible to be served due to the absence of closed documents, and the court of first instance conducted the service of dispatch.
On May 18, 2007, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment of the plaintiff without pleading, and on May 30, 2007, delivered the original copy of the judgment to the same address on May 30, 2007, and was unable to serve the original copy due to the addressee's unknown, the court determined on June 7, 2007 to serve the defendant by public notice, and served the original copy on June 22, 2007.
On June 2, 2017, after the expiration of the appeal period, the Defendant submitted a written appeal for the subsequent completion to the court of first instance.
The Defendant alleged that the instant lawsuit was filed against the Defendant on April 21, 2017, because the Defendant was unable to receive the original copy of the instant complaint and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court. However, the Plaintiff was identical against the Defendant under the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-Support 2017Ga31780 for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription period of claims based on the said judgment.