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 as to the plaintiff's defense of principal safety against the defendant's incidental appeal

A. As a ground for appeal following the subsequent completion of this case, the Defendant alleged that the instant complaint was not served, and that the copy of the complaint and the original copy of the written judgment were served by public notice, and thus, the Plaintiff was not responsible for failing to observe the period of appeal. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to serve due to the absence of a closed text, and that the Defendant received the property specification decision (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2013Kao 6971) on December 9, 2013, the Defendant intentionally avoided the receipt, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal is unlawful, and thus, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

B. If the original copy, etc. of the judgment was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant constitutes a case where the peremptory term is unable to be observed due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the parties or legal representatives have known of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the parties or legal representatives knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the parties or legal representatives have become aware of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). C.

1) The instant complaint was sent to the Defendant on May 14, 2012, but the delivery became impossible on May 17, 2012 due to the impossibility of being served on May 17, 2012. In other words, the said complaint was corrected in accordance with the order to rectify the address (Seoul.).