1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 2, 2014.

The original Defendant was present at the date of the first pleading ( November 20, 2014) in the first instance court, and testified, and was notified of the date of the second pleading ( December 18, 2014) in the court.

On December 12, 2014, the Plaintiff was confined to a detention house for other criminal cases.

The plaintiff did not appear on the second day for pleading, and the defendant did not appear, but did not state his opinion.

The court of the first instance served the notice of the third date for pleading on the basis of Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act without knowing that the plaintiff was detained.

The plaintiff was not present on January 22, 2015, which was the third date for pleading, and the defendant was present, but did not present.

On March 4, 2016, the Plaintiff applied for the designation of the date.

The court of first instance determined that “the Plaintiff’s application for designating the date was filed one month after the second party’s absence, and thus, the lawsuit in this case was terminated on February 22, 2015 in accordance with Article 268(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.”

“Withdrawal of a lawsuit” under Article 268 of the Civil Procedure Act is premised on the fact that both parties to the lawsuit were not present on the date of pleading, even if they received a notification of legitimate date of pleading.

In this case, in relation to these legal principles, the delivery of the notice of the third date for pleading to the plaintiff's previous address, other than the place for receiving the notice of the third date for pleading under the circumstances where the plaintiff was at the detention house, is a matter of whether it is legitimate even if the court did not know of the change

However, service on a detained person shall be effected by the warden of the correctional institution, etc. (Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act), and even if the court has different knowledge of the identification of a person involved in the litigation, it shall be limited to the previous domicile or residence