beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case.
1. The following facts in fact of recognition are apparent in the records or obvious to this court:
A. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against Defendant and Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C, Ltd. with the District Court 2015da117257, and the court of first instance served on October 7, 2015, a copy of the instant complaint, a litigation guide, etc. as “Seoul Seocho-gu J”, the Defendant’s domicile. On October 13, 2015, the Defendant was served with K, who is a co-defendant of the Defendant.
B. On December 9, 2015, the Defendant appeared at the date of pleading on January 12, 2016 after being served directly by the principal at the above service place. On the said date of pleading, the Defendant was notified of the second date of pleading on March 15, 2016, and submitted a written response on January 19, 2016.
C. On February 26, 2016, the court of first instance served a notice of the second date for pleading on the Defendant as the service place, but was not served as a closed door, and served on March 11, 2016, and the Defendant was absent on the date for pleading ( March 15, 2016).
After that, on March 15, 2016, the court of first instance served the notice of the third date for pleading against the defendant as the above service place, but was not served due to the unknown whereabouts of the director, and served on March 23, 2016, and the defendant was absent on the date for pleading ( April 14, 2016).
E. On April 14, 2016, the court of first instance served a notice on the Defendant as the place of service, but did not serve the notice as a director’s unknown, and served the notice by means of service on April 25, 2016.
F. On May 12, 2016, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, and on May 13, 2016, served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant as the above service place, but was not served as the director’s unknown. On May 25, 2016, the original copy of the judgment was served by means of service by public notice, and on June 9, 2016.