1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant case shall be remanded to Busan District Court ( single judge).

purport, purport, and.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From November 10, 201 to June 30, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was an employee of Nam Branch Development Co., Ltd. who works at D Corporation at D Corporation’s site; (b) was living at the site office and accommodation located in Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan; (c) the resident registration address was from January 12, 2010 to 306, Busan Dongdong-gu, Busan; and (d) filed a move-in report under 208 Dong-dong 102, Busan, Busan, the residence of Busan, the Busan, the Busan, which was the residence of G, was the death village, on April 30, 2013.

B. On May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and indicated the Defendant’s address as F apartment Na 306, Busan East-gu, Busan-dong, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was not served due to the absence of waste. On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff issued the Defendant’s resident registration transfer report to H apartment 208 Dong 1002, Busan-dong, Busan-dong, Busan-dong, 2002.

C. After that, the notice of the sentencing date and the original copy of the judgment were served again by public notice on August 13, 2013, and each service of the original copy of the judgment was made by public notice on September 10, 2013, even though it was attempted to serve as F apartment Na306, the Busan Dong-gu, Busan, which was the place of the relocation report, but did not serve as a director's unknown. Accordingly, the notice of the sentencing date was served on August 13, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in the evidence Nos. 8 through 14, and records clearly

2. In general, in the case of a supplementary service under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where the person to receive the service is absent for a long time due to going out of home, sailing, study abroad, etc., the supplementary service or detention cannot be made to him/her, unless he/she is delegated to receive the service, even if there is a person to be an agent to receive the service at the place of service. Accordingly, according to the above recognition, the defendant was absent in the above domicile for a long period of about three years and six months, and if he/she did not live together with the defendant, he/she was entrusted with the service by the defendant.