1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case, which was filed after two weeks from the time when the judgment of the court of first instance was served, is unlawful, since the plaintiff failed to file a report on the transfer of domicile, etc. by intention or negligence of the defendant, etc.

A subsequent completion of procedural acts stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act may be made where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them. Here, “reasons not attributable to the parties” refers to the case where the parties are unable to comply with the relevant period despite their due care to conduct such procedural acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da44679, Sept. 24, 2009). The first instance court provides the Defendant with a notice of the date of pleading and notice of the date of pleading through service by public notice, and concludes pleadings on May 29, 2018, and immediately announced the first instance judgment and the original copy of the first instance judgment was served to the Defendant on June 12, 2018, and thus, it is apparent that the next day became effective due to service by public notice and thus, even if the Defendant failed to faithfully make a prior entry report, it constitutes a case where the Defendant was unable to be served without fault due to such reasons as a result of service by public notice.

Furthermore, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, the plaintiff applied for the seizure and collection order as the title of the judgment of the court of first instance by the Jeonju District Court Branching 2018TTT 5393, and can be recognized as being issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the defendant's deposit against the defendant C on July 26, 2018. The defendant is only based on the above seizure and collection order.