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. On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court to return unjust enrichment of the instant case. The Defendant directly served the duplicate of the instant complaint at his/her domicile on June 11, 2014, and submitted “written objection” by mail on June 19, 2014. The court of first instance designated the date for pleading to the co-defendants of the first instance court at the time when the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint was completed, and notified the Defendant of the date by the method of delivery by registered mail (three times) if the notice of the date for pleading was sent to the Defendant, but the delivery was not completed due to the absence of the closed text (three times). On May 7, 2015, the court of first instance announced the Defendant on June 18, 2015, and notified the Defendant of the date for pleading at his/her domicile, and notified the Defendant on June 19, 2015, which was not served on the Defendant’s address (3.15).

However, as in the case of this case, when the court completes the lawful pleading and notifies the date of adjudication, the remaining party shall also be deemed to have the effect, and it did not serve a notice of the date of adjudication on the date of adjudication on the relevant party.

Even if it is not illegal, it cannot be considered unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da72514 delivered on April 25, 2003). In addition, insofar as the original copy of the judgment of the first instance is delivered to the defendant by means of service by public notice by the order of the presiding judge, the requirements are not satisfied.