매매대금반환
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On November 30, 2006, the first instance court served the Defendant with a duplicate of the complaint and a written guidance of lawsuit on November 30, 2006, but it was impossible to serve the Defendant as “closed absence.” However, on December 7, 2016, the Plaintiff corrected the Defendant’s address, and the first instance court served the duplicate of the complaint and the written guidance of lawsuit to the Defendant on March 2, 2017 (hereinafter “instant address”), which is the Defendant’s corrected address (hereinafter “the Defendant’s domicile”). Around March 3, 2017, the Defendant’s written guidance was received as a co-resident.
3) After that, on March 6, 2017, the first instance court served a notice of the date of pleading on the domicile of the instant case, but when it was impossible to serve the notice as “the absence of receiving person” and “the absence of closing documents,” the first instance court sent it to the domicile of the instant case on March 29, 2017. 4) concluded the pleadings among the Defendant’s absence on the date of pleading on April 5, 2017, and declared a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on the same day.
After that, on April 10, 2017, the first instance court served the original copy of the judgment on the domicile of this case, but it was impossible to serve the original copy as “the absence of the recipient,” and served the original copy again on April 26, 2017, but it was impossible to serve the original copy as “closed absence,” and issued an order of service by public notice on May 11, 2017, and served the original copy by public notice on May 27, 2017.
5) On July 12, 2017, the Defendant knew that the seizure of corporeal movables was executed, and submitted the instant written appeal on July 17, 2017, after being inspected with the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on July 14, 2017. Meanwhile, around March 27, 2013, the Defendant resided in the “Seoul E, Dobong-gu, Seoul, and 401” at the place of residence of the instant case, and had resided from around August 19, 2016, the Defendant resided in the “F, 303 Dong 101 (hereinafter “actual residence of the instant case”).
Grounds for recognition: