1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff falling under the above revoked part is against Defendant C.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of Defendant C’s subsequent appeal

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of this case and Eul's testimony as stated in the evidence Nos. 13 and 14 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and as witness of the trial court H.

1) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the domicile of Defendant C as Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu I, and the first instance court served a duplicate of the complaint and the written guidance for lawsuit on April 7, 2013. However, the first instance court ordered the Plaintiff to correct the address. The first instance court issued an order to correct the address. The Plaintiff applied for the service at night to the above domicile according to the last domicile of Defendant C on the resident registration of Defendant C, and the first instance court served the execution officer as the above address, but the service was impossible due to the absence of the closed text. The first instance court ordered the Plaintiff to correct the address. The first instance court again filed an order to correct the address, and the first instance court again filed an application for service by public notice on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be known. The first instance court served the enforcement officer again at the above address, and the second instance court received a duplicate of the complaint and the written guidance for lawsuit on April 7, 2013. The first instance court, who did not submit a written response by the deadline specified in the Defendant C’s written guidance for lawsuit, sent the notice to Defendant C as an addressee’s notice.

Upon Defendant B’s submission of a written response on May 29, 2013, the first instance court revoked the judgment without pleading, and again served the notice on the date for pleading to Defendant C, which became impossible to serve due to the second addressee’s unknown address, served the said notice by means of delivery, and thereafter served all the documents to be served to Defendant C by means of delivery to the said address.

On May 27, 2014, the first instance court rendered a favorable judgment against Defendant C on the part of the Plaintiff according to the deeming of confession, and the original of the judgment is the domicile of the said domicile.