2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the records of this case and evidence Nos. 1 through 4, a service report was prepared to the effect that the plaintiff sent a copy of the complaint of this case to the "Neong-gun L" which was entered in the defendant's domicile at the defendant's complaint and that M which was in a mother-child relationship with the defendant was received on June 3, 2013. After that, the application for correction of the party's indication was made on July 16, 2013, the notice of the date for pleading was sent to the same address on October 7, 2013, and all the defendant's mother-child were sent to the same address on the same date as the defendant's mother-child was received on the same date on October 2, 2013, and was delivered to the defendant's mother-child 2, 2013 and the fact that M was sent to the defendant's domicile on December 2, 2013 as the defendant's mother-child 2, 30.4.

As seen above, ① the duplicate of the instant complaint was sent to the Defendant’s early domicile rather than the Defendant’s domicile, and the Defendant’s early M received it but does not seem to have been delivered to the Defendant in light of the Defendant’s health condition at the time, ② the application for correction of the indication of the party concerned, the notice of the date of pleading, and the notice of the date of pronouncement indicated in the service report that the Defendant’s mother N was received. However, at the time, N did not reside in the above address, and thus, it is highly probable that N did not receive it directly. ③ In particular, the following.