1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. This.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) was aware of the fact that the Defendant was unable to serve the documents, such as a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court, and that the judgment of the first instance court was pronounced, and that the Defendant was aware of the above facts. Therefore, the Defendant was unable to comply with the appeal period against the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that the Defendant cannot be held liable, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion within 2 weeks from January 12, 2017, on the grounds that the cause ceases to exist. As such, the instant appeal for subsequent completion is lawful. 2) As long as the Defendant or the Defendant’s cohabitant was received at the Defendant’s domicile on the Plaintiff’s resident registration address, the Defendant’s failure to file an appeal within the appeal does not constitute a case where the Defendant could not observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant. Therefore, the subsequent completion of appeal by the Defendant is unlawful.

B. 1) In the case of a subsequent appeal, the reason for subsequent completion must be proved unless the existence of the reason for subsequent completion is the fact of public notice or obvious fact to the court. Thus, a person who files an subsequent appeal is unable to observe the peremptory period for an appeal due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and a person who files an subsequent appeal shall assert and prove that he/she filed a neglected appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. This constitutes a litigation requirement, and thus, the court shall examine ex officio even if it constitutes a litigation requirement (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da21222, Jan. 30, 200). Meanwhile, in principle, delivery of documents by delivery by a certified copy or duplicate to the person receiving the delivery of documents is based on the principle (Article 178(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, supplementaryly, if the person fails to have only the person served at a place other than the place of service, as his/her clerk, employee, or cohabitant.