1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is legitimate for receiving a copy of the complaint, etc. at the Defendant’s place of work, which is the Defendant’s pro-Japanese, by serving the documents on the Defendant. As such, insofar as the service is lawful, it does not constitute a case where the peremptory period cannot be complied with due to the Defendant’s non-responsibility. Therefore

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the appeal of this case is lawful, since the defendant was unable to lawfully receive the notice of the complaint, the date of pleading, etc., and thus, the appeal of this case constitutes a case where the defendant was unable to comply with the appeal period

B. (i) On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and entered the Defendant’s address in the complaint as “B”, and the court of the first instance served a copy, etc. of the complaint on July 24, 2014 to the address above, but was impossible to serve as the director’s unknown on July 28, 2014.

B. On July 31, 2014, the Plaintiff revised the Defendant’s address to “Seosan-gu, Busan-dong, Non-dong, 204 (hereinafter “instant address”). On August 1, 2014, the court of first instance served the copy, etc. of the complaint as the instant domicile, and on August 6, 2014, G, a co-resident of the Defendant, received the same as the Defendant’s birth.

The court of first instance, after the lapse of thirty (30) days from the date when the defendant did not submit a written answer, decides to declare a judgment without holding a pleadings, and served a notice of the sentencing date on September 11, 2014 on the domicile of the instant case on September 17, 2014, but it was impossible to serve a notice of the sentencing date due to the absence of closure on September 17, 2014. Accordingly, the court of first instance served the notice of the sentencing date on September 22, 2014 by serving the notice by means of delivery on September 22, 2014.

Applicant The first instance court rendered a favorable judgment on October 16, 2014, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant on October 20, 2014, but it was impossible to serve the original copy of the judgment on October 22, 2014 due to the addressee’s unknown whereabouts, the original copy of the judgment on October 27, 2014.