1. Construction of defendant EEE-EX in the judgment of the first instance, including a claim partially changed in the course of a trial.

1. We examine the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal filed by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) ex officio on the determination of the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal.

The Seoul Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U and 3 (hereinafter “instant address”), which is the office of Defendant B, received a copy of the instant complaint. Since then, the court of first instance rendered a judgment on May 27, 2014 by sending the said original copy to the said address but going through a service by delivery to the said address if the director was not known. The court of first instance ordered the said original copy to be served by public notice on June 25, 2014 by serving the said original copy on the part of the said judgment, and then Defendant B received the said original copy on August 22, 2014. The fact that Defendant B filed the instant appeal on August 22, 2014 is obvious or obvious in the record.

On the other hand, the person to be served is the representative of the legal entity, and the person to be served under the Civil Procedure Act is in principle at the domicile, temporary domicile, domicile, business office, or office of the legal entity. Thus, service on the legal entity is in principle at the domicile, temporary domicile, temporary domicile, business office or office of the legal entity. If the legal entity is a party, service on the legal entity's domicile (the head office location) is also a legitimate place of service, but it is impossible to serve on the legal entity's domicile (including where service is made at the address of the legal entity but it is impossible to serve upon the legal entity's domicile). Thus, in this case, the court of first instance shall serve on the legal entity's representative's domicile as stated in the corporate register, etc.