1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. The summary of the party’s assertion is that the Defendant was unable to serve on the Defendant on the ground that the duplicate, etc. of the complaint of this case was unknown, and the proceedings of the first instance court were conducted by public notice from the beginning, and the Defendant was unaware of the progress of the lawsuit of this case, and the Plaintiff did not know at all, the judgment of the first instance court rendered a provisional seizure on real estate owned by the Defendant with the title of execution, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the first instance court rendered a judgment after visiting the Plaintiff’s office to make a claim against the Defendant on April 26, 2017, and immediately submitted a written appeal to complete the appeal to the court of first instance, the Defendant asserted that the subsequent appeal is lawful.

As to this, the plaintiff asserted that the court of first instance was responsible for the defendant's failure to observe the appeal period, since the defendant's negligence failed to receive the copy, etc. of the complaint of this case, although the court of first instance served a copy, etc. of the complaint of this case on the defendant's resident registration address.

B. According to the records of this case, although the court of first instance served the original copy of the instant payment order on the Defendant’s resident registration address, it became impossible to serve the original copy of the instant payment order on the Defendant’s resident registration; thereafter, the court of first instance served the duplicate, etc. of the instant written complaint on the Defendant’s resident registration address upon the Plaintiff’s application for lawsuit, but also became impossible to serve the original copy, etc. on the Defendant’s resident registration address; thereafter, the court of first instance declared the first instance judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on March 30, 2017 by serving public notice on the Defendant; and then served the original copy on the Defendant by serving public notice; and the Defendant visited the court of first instance on May 4, 2017; and applied for perusal and duplication of records, and thereafter, on May 8, 2017.