The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Article 186(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when a recipient of service has not been present at a work place, the document may be delivered to his employee, his legal representative or employee, or any other employee, who is man of sense, unless he refuses to receive the document.

This provision concerning the supplementary service at work place applies to the case where a service of documents, such as a copy of complaint, against the defendant, is not possible at the domicile, temporary domicile, business office or office of the person (hereinafter referred to as "place of service, etc.") or where it is impossible to serve the documents, such as domicile, temporary domicile, business office or domicile, etc., which is a supplementary service place (Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), that is, where the person to receive the documents is employed by employment delegation or other legal acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da25779, Oct. 28, 2005). According to the records, at the first instance court and the lower court, the delivery of documents, such as a copy of complaint, to the defendant, was directly received by the defendant, or received by K, M, etc., working place of the defendant, or the defendant's delivery of the documents to the court of appeal No. 275, Feb. 17, 2016.

Therefore, the service place of this case constitutes a legitimate service place reported by the defendant, and the defendant's notice of receipt of records of this case on July 27, 2017.