Defendant B’s KRW 7,00,000 and this is against the Plaintiff.

Service on a person arrested, detained, or detained in the detention room of a correctional institution, detention house, or national police office is to be effected by the head of the correctional institution, detention house, or national police office (Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act). As such, service on the capital restructuring is a kind of legal representative in the course of service on the capital restructuring. Thus, if service on the capital restructuring is made without being served on the warden of the correctional institution, etc., it cannot be deemed null and void if the service on the capital restructuring is made without being served on the former principal or residence before being detained by the warden of the correctional institution, etc., and in making service by the court of lawsuit, the court of lawsuit knew of the fact

Even if the document prepared on December 14, 2018 is served to the plaintiff's address, and the delivery does not take effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82DaKa349, Dec. 28, 1982). Defendant B was served to the original prison at the time of the instant lawsuit and was released on October 28, 2020, which was pending in the trial. Nevertheless, on December 20, 2018, the document prepared by the plaintiff on December 14, 2018 and received by the above defendant I as a counter H of Changwon-si, the plaintiff's mother was served to the above defendant B. After the first instance court, all documents served to the defendant B, such as a copy of the complaint, a written preparation, a copy of the statement of pleading, the date of pleading, and the original copy of the judgment, etc., are served to the above defendant's mother or the mother of the above defendant, and received it, can be acknowledged to the purport of this court as a whole.

If so, according to the above legal principles, all service on Defendant B in the first instance court's judgment is invalid, and the part of the judgment on Defendant B in the first instance court's judgment against Defendant B is sentenced to a judgment without lawful delivery of litigation documents.

Therefore, the first instance judgment is unfair because the important litigation procedures are contrary to the law, and the judgment procedure (adjudication procedure) is also contrary to the law.

2. Judgment on the merits

(a)a Party;