A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was served on May 13, 2016 by the Defendant on the copy, etc. of the instant complaint. As can be seen, if the Defendant knew of the filing of the suit but neglected it and served by public notice, then the Defendant was negligent in finding the fact that the original copy of the first instance judgment was served by public notice even though it was unaware of the fact.

As such, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful.

B. 1) The act of litigation which may take effect to a party to a lawsuit who is a juristic person must be an act of a natural person representing the juristic person or an act of such natural person. Thus, documents such as a complaint, date of summons, and judgment have to be served to the representative (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da170, Apr. 27, 1976). The service is in principle at the address, residence, place of business or office of the representative of the juristic person. Here, the term "place of business or office" refers to the business or office of the juristic person in question. Thus, the business office or office of another juristic person which has a separate legal personality as the representative is merely the representative's work place (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da2176, Feb. 25, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 97Da31267, Dec. 9, 197; Supreme Court Decision 201Da6175, Apr. 25, 2003).