1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation conducted within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” Here, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s duty of due care to perform the litigation in general. In cases where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have been unaware of the judgment without negligence. Unless the defendant was aware of the continuation of the litigation from the beginning, and the original copy of the judgment was delivered to the defendant by public notice and became aware of such fact, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). B.

However, according to the records of this case, the court of first instance served the notice of a copy of complaint and the date for pleading against the defendant to the address where the plaintiff stated that it is the defendant's domicile. The plaintiff stated the defendant's address as the same place as the plaintiff's domicile, and served the plaintiff's imprisonment C, which was the plaintiff's imprisonment. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiff changed the defendant's address to Sungnam-gu D building and 107 Dong 204, but it was impossible to serve the defendant, but the court of first instance declared the judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on June 30, 2016 after serving the document of lawsuit by means of delivery, and served the original copy to the defendant by means of service by public notice, and the defendant perused and copied the judgment around October 19, 2016.