대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. On May 30, 2016, this Court rendered a request for a stay of compulsory execution against the case of applying for a stay of compulsory execution.
1. On March 5, 2008, the plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff's duplicate is delivered to the defendant's domicile on March 5, 2008 and the child C living together with the defendant received it and the original judgment was delivered to the defendant by public notice, even if the original judgment of the court of first instance was served to the defendant by public notice, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's failure to observe the appeal period due to his duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit is due to a cause not attributable to the defendant.
On March 3, 2008, the court of first instance served a copy of the complaint of this case on March 3, 2008 as 101 Dong 406, Guro-gu, Seoul, the defendant's domicile, and received it on March 5, 2008, stated C as a child living together with the defendant in a service report on the copy of the complaint of this case, stated C as a child living together with the defendant. After the court of first instance, the court of first instance served the defendant a notice of the sentencing date to the defendant as the above domicile but the director was not known, but the above notice was sent to the defendant on April 23, 2008. After the court of first instance sentenced the judgment, the original copy of the judgment was sent to the defendant as the above domicile, but it was impossible to serve the original copy on May 29, 2008, and the service became effective on June 13, 2008, and the defendant submitted the record of this case to the court of first instance on May 13, 2016.
However, according to Eul evidence No. 1, it can be recognized that C, as an adult of the defendant in 1987 at the time of delivering the copy of the complaint of this case, had been registered as a resident of the defendant in Yangcheon-gu Seoul E-fiveth floor, not the defendant's address stated in the service report. According to this, C cannot be deemed as a person living together with the same household as the defendant, so the service of the copy of complaint was lawful.