1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. On February 17, 2011, the first instance court, which determined whether an appeal for subsequent completion is lawful, served a copy of the complaint against the defendant and a notice of date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and served the proceedings by means of pleadings, and served the original copy of the judgment in the manner of service by public notice. On August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was served on August 27, 2013 when he/she was served with the order to commence a compulsory auction case for real estate supply by public notice. The fact that the first instance court filed an appeal for subsequent completion on September 4, 2013, which was earlier than the lapse of two weeks, can be recognized as recorded in the record or that it is significant to this court.

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case is lawful by satisfying the requirements for the subsequent completion of the litigation.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant intentionally avoided the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and that there is a reason to be responsible for failing to observe the appeal period, which is the

According to the records of this case, the first instance court's domicile at the time of delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the defendant and the defendant's domicile at the time of filing an appeal for subsequent completion is the same.

However, the facts that the first instance court was unable to receive a copy of the complaint of this case delivered to the defendant who had continued to receive a tiny treatment from July 2010 to October 201, when the service by the mail or execution officer of the duplicate of the complaint of this case was conducted by the court of first instance from July 2010 to October 201.

Therefore, the defendant intentionally avoided service and provided the cause of service by public notice solely on the ground that there is no change in the domicile of the defendant.

The plaintiff's above assertion is rejected because it is difficult to view that there is a reason to assume responsibility for failure to observe the appeal period.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The defendant and C, recognized as one of the facts as to the cause of the claim, are the defendant and C of 2006.