A. On December 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant suit. The duplicate of the instant complaint was served on January 18, 2019 to E, who is the “Dongman (Dongman)” residing in South-gu C and D at the port of port on January 18, 2019. (2) On February 11, 2019, the court of first instance sent the notice of the date for pleading to the Defendant to the place of delivery, but was sent as a closed door, and sent on February 20, 2019 and sent the notice to the Defendant on February 21, 2019.

3) On March 13, 2019, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff after closing a pleading on the date of pleading, and on March 15, 2019, the court sent the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant on March 15, 2019, but did not serve the original copy on the Defendant due to an addressee’s unknown address. On March 21, 2019, the service of the original copy of the judgment by public notice became effective at the time of April 50, 2019. (iv) The Defendant filed an appeal to complete the instant case on August 9, 2019.

[Grounds for Recognition] Cleared facts in records

B. Determination 1) In principle, the delivery of a certified copy or duplicate of a document to a person to be served in a civil lawsuit is based on the principle (Article 178(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). If a person to be served is not present at a place other than a work place, the document may be served to such person as a person living together with the same household as the person to be served (see Supreme Court Order 200Ma5732, Oct. 28, 200). The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) according to the purport of the pleading, the defendant was served on December 21, 2018 with a move-in report under the Nam-gu, Nam-gu and C and D, and then received the move-in report on January 16, 2019; and (b) the fact that the move-in report in this case was served to the domicile of the person who actually belonged to the same household as the person to be served (see Supreme Court Order 200Ma5732, Oct. 28, 2019).

However, this case received as the defendant's liveee E.