1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Intervenor’s succeeding intervenor is against the Defendant.

1. Whether the appeal of this case is lawful may be served at the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business, office (hereinafter “location, etc.”) or place of work of the person to be served (Article 183(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act). If the address, etc. of the person to be served or the place of service is unknown in Korea or is unknown, the document may be served at the place of service (Article 183(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). If the person to be served is not present at the place of service other than the place of service, the document may be served at the office, employee, or cohabitant of the person to be served with the mental capability to make reasonable judgment.

(Article 186 (1) of the same Act, and if the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance is not served lawfully, the appeal period against the judgment is not run so that the judgment becomes final and conclusive formally, and therefore the appeal against the judgment is lawful as it is filed before service of the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da10345 delivered on May 30, 197, etc.). On the other hand, a service report prepared and submitted to the court in writing the reason for service by the agency which served under Article 193 of the Civil Procedure Act is not merely a method of evidence for the fact of service. However, the service report is an official document and its authenticity is presumed to have been presumed, and the service report does not immediately become null and void because the service is illegal, but it is proved that the act of service was lawfully performed by other evidence, and it shall be interpreted that the service is valid only if other evidence proves that the service was performed by the agency.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2000Mo42, Aug. 22, 2000). According to the record, the court of first instance postal service at the domicile of the defendant as stated below 2 on September 25, 2003.