1. The defendant's petition for retrial is dismissed;

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are apparent in records or obvious to this court.

On January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Daejeon District Court 2017Gahap100127 against the Defendant, B, and C seeking the payment of damages due to nonperformance (hereinafter “case subject to review”).

B. The Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s address in the complaint of the case subject to reexamination as “AD, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun,” and this court served a duplicate of the complaint on the Defendant’s address. However, on January 12, 2017, the duplicate of the complaint was not served because the director was unknown.

C. On January 17, 2017, the court ordered the Plaintiff to correct the Defendant’s address. On the same day, the Plaintiff submitted to this court a written correction of address attached with the Defendant’s address record (hereinafter “instant address record”) proved by the Minister of the Interior, and filed an application for service by public notice on the grounds that the Defendant’s address cannot be known.

On January 18, 2017, this Court ordered the Plaintiff to revise the Defendant’s address again, upon rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for service by public notice. On January 18, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for special service (on night service) with the same court at the same address as before.

E. The instant court, on January 18, 2017, carried out a special service through an enforcement officer at night, on the part of the Defendant, but on January 26, 2017, as the owner of the building at the domicile nine years prior to the domicile, the Defendant did not serve a duplicate of the complaint on the ground that he/she does not reside in the building at present according to the neighboring residents.

F. Accordingly, on February 14, 2017, the instant court issued an order to correct the Defendant’s address to the Plaintiff, and on February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for special delivery (Holiday service) with the same address as that of the previous court, along with the instant written history of address transfer.

G. Accordingly, this Court held on February 15, 2017 that a special service was made to the Defendant on a holiday through an enforcement officer, but the said clause was the same as the foregoing on February 19, 2017.