1. Of the judgment of the first instance, among the judgment of the court of first instance, indication 16, 17, 18, 19, 4, 5, 5, among the land size of 116 square meters in CJ 16 square meters to the Plaintiff.

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. 1) The parties’ assertion 1) The Bupyeong-gu Incheon Bupyeong-gu F (hereinafter “instant domicile”) which is the domicile of the Plaintiff Defendant’s resident registration.

(2) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a claim for extradition of the instant land under the Chuncheon District Court Gangnam Branch Branch Office 2017Kadan34529, on October 27, 2017, on which the Plaintiff was served a written answer in the instant case, and thereafter, the Defendant failed to comply with the peremptory period due to the Defendant’s failure to investigate the progress of the first instance trial proceedings. As such, the instant subsequent appeal was unlawful.

Although the domicile of this case is the defendant's resident registration address, the defendant did not reside in the domicile of this case since the building on the ground of this case was leased to the lessee.

Therefore, G, who did not live together with the Defendant at the address of this case, was merely a lessee, and the written complaint of this case was served on May 11, 2017 is unlawful.

(b)The following facts of recognition may be recognized in the records, together with the statements of Nos. 1, 6, and 7 and the purport of the entire arguments:

1) On April 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and entered the Defendant’s address in the instant complaint as the domicile, which is the Defendant’s resident registration address. Accordingly, the court of first instance served the Defendant with a duplicate of the complaint on the instant domicile, which is the Defendant’s resident registration address. On April 17, 2017, the first instance court did not serve the Defendant with a copy of the complaint as the director’s unknown address, and on May 11, 2017, received the duplicate of the instant complaint, stating “the Defendant’s person living together with the Defendant” at the instant domicile. (2) Although the first instance court served the notice as the date for pleading, it was impossible to serve the notice on the date for pleading as the director’s unknown on May 18, 201