1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of business income, and the court of first instance served the duplicate of the complaint as “Yong-dong C, Chungcheongnam-gun,” the Defendant’s domicile, and received it on July 26, 2017.

On November 23, 2017, the court of first instance, sent a notice of the date of pleading to the address of the defendant, but was not served due to the absence of a closed door, notified by the method of delivery, and declared a judgment citing the plaintiff's claim on November 23, 2017.

B. The court of first instance also rendered a disposition by public notice on December 22, 2017, which did not serve the original copy of the judgment as a closed door to the defendant’s address, and served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance by public notice to the defendant. On January 60, 2018, the service became effective at the time of delivery.

C. On February 8, 2018, the Defendant received a certified copy of the judgment, and submitted the instant written appeal for the subsequent completion on February 22, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The court of first instance asserted by the defendant that the notice on the date of pleading against the defendant was served immediately when it is impossible to serve the notice on the date of pleading due to the absence of a closed door. Since the notice on the date of pleading against the defendant was served immediately without serving it on the "Seoul Special Metropolitan City D," which is another domicile of the defendant under the business agreement with Gap No. 1, the above service is unlawful and the defendant could not serve the peremptory period, so the appeal of this case is lawful.

B. As stated in Article 185(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the term “where the place to serve a delivery is unknown” means the service by registered mail only when it is not necessary to order the other party to correct his/her address or to investigate the resident registration record card, etc. ex officio, but the place to serve a delivery is unknown.