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 February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant with Suwon District Court KRW 2014Kadan2803. On February 27, 2014, the first instance court served a duplicate of the instant complaint on 1274, which is in conformity with the Defendant’s location of the headquarters, according to the opasisis, which is the Defendant’s location. B received the same on March 3, 2014.

B. On March 27, 2014, the first instance court served a notice of the sentencing date on the location of the Defendant’s head office, and C received the notice on March 31, 2014 on the grounds of office work at the same time, even after the lapse of 30 days from the date on which a copy of the above complaint was served.

C. On April 16, 2014, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on April 16, 201, and served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on April 18, 2014 at the location of the Defendant’s principal office, and D’s work cause was received on April 21, 2014.

On October 14, 2014, when two weeks from the date of service of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant submitted the instant supplementary appeal to the first instance court on October 14, 2014.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, significant fact in this court, and purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the appeal of this case

A. The plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case was unlawful since the appeal of this case was filed after the lapse of the appeal period and did not meet the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.

In regard to this, the defendant discontinued his business at the time when the original copy of the complaint of this case, the notice of the date of sentencing, and the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance were served. Since the documents of this lawsuit were served to B, C, and D not the defendant's employee but the defendant, a company separate from the defendant located at the location of the defendant's principal office, the defendant asserts that the appeal of this case is lawful because the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance, etc.

B. Whether the judgment 1 supplementary service is lawful