1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, a claim for the removal of a building and a claim for the return of unjust enrichment ordering payment exceeding KRW 2,234,032.

1. On September 24, 2014, the Plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case is unlawful, since the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant’s domicile on September 24, 2014 and the spouse E living together with the Defendant was served on the Defendant through service by public notice, even if the original judgment of the first instance court was served on the Defendant by public notice, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s failure to observe the appeal period due to his duty to investigate the progress of the lawsuit is due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant.

Therefore, on September 17, 2014, the court of first instance served a copy of the instant complaint on the part of the defendant, who is the domicile of the defendant, as F, and received it on September 24, 2014; E stated in the service report on the duplicate of the complaint as the spouse living together with the defendant; the court of first instance thereafter served the notice to the defendant as the domicile of the defendant; but it was impossible to serve the notice due to the absence of closure; on November 14, 2014, the court of first instance served the above notice to the defendant as the domicile; on the other hand, the court of first instance served the original copy as the above domicile; on the other hand, the court of first instance served the original copy as the service of service by public notice on December 1, 2014; on the other hand, the service of the original copy became effective on December 16, 2014; and on the other hand, the defendant submitted the record to the court of first instance to the court of first instance on December 13, 2015.

Furthermore, with regard to the plaintiff's above argument, if the purport of the whole argument is added to the statement of No. 1, No. 2, No. 2-1, No. 2, and No. 3, E is not the defendant's spouse but the defendant's domicile at the time of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and E is recognized as having resident registration in G, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, other than the defendant's domicile at the time of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. Accordingly, E cannot be deemed as