The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. 1) On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. seeking the payment of the instant goods, and the co-defendant C of the first instance court misleads the Defendant and the co-defendant C as the husband’s death, and stated the Defendant’s address in the written complaint as “K at Silung-si,” which is the Defendant’s domicile, as the Defendant’s domicile. Although the first instance court intended to serve the Defendant with a copy of the instant written complaint and the written guidance of lawsuit, the Plaintiff was not served as a closed door. 2) The Plaintiff corrected the address with “Yyang-gu, Seoyang-gu L and M” which is the new domicile of C. On July 4, 2018, the first instance court did not serve the Defendant with a copy of the written complaint, etc.,

3) On July 19, 2018, the Plaintiff revised the Defendant’s domicile to “E” business place in the Defendant’s name as the Defendant’s personal business chain (E) and the first instance court served the Defendant’s domicile as the said address. The notice of postal service indicated that N on July 25, 2018 was received. 4) The first instance court rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on October 4, 2018, and received N on October 11, 2018.

5) On January 30, 2020, on which the appeal period has lapsed, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for the subsequent completion to the first instance court on January 30, 2020. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence No. 9, and the purport of

B. The defendant's assertion N is not a business personnel of the defendant, and the defendant is not entitled to receive documents of lawsuit on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant was unable to receive the original copy of the complaint of this case and the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance, and was unaware of

Since the defendant became aware of it on January 30, 2020, the appeal of this case is lawful.

C. In principle, the service 1 service is not known at the domicile, temporary domicile, residence, or office of the person to be served, or at that place.