1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

1. As to the legitimacy of the appeal, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not receive the service for the purpose of avoiding the court's trial, or that he did not make the service by making the service by being falsely registered as "Seoul Gangnam-gu H and Lee Dong-gu 4403" only while residing in another actual domicile and registered as a resident registration address. Thus, this does not constitute "reasons for which the party cannot be responsible" under Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Unless there are special circumstances, if the original copy, etc. of the judgment was served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, in ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was not served with the aim of evading the court’s trial, or entered false addresses, and served with the copy of the complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. by means of service by public notice.

Rather, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on December 6, 2013 after serving a copy of the complaint and a writ of summons to the Defendant by public notice.