1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, in addition to adding “2. Additional determination”, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The defendant asserts that the representative director of the defendant company was confined to the Seoul detention center from August 18, 2013 to February 14, 2014, and that the plaintiff did not receive the peremptory notice from February 11, 2014.

However, unless there are special circumstances, if a content-certified mail is sent and not returned, it shall be deemed that it was served at that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 2000). Since there are no special circumstances that the notice sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in this case was returned, the above peremptory notice shall be presumed to have arrived at the Defendant around that time.

Even if the Defendant was unable to receive the content-certified mail, it is clear in the record that the instant complaint accompanied by the Plaintiff’s peremptory notice on February 11, 2014 was served on the Defendant on August 24, 2018.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.