1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

All claims of the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties are dismissed.

1. Article 182 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that service on a person arrested, detained, or detained in a prison, detention house, or detention room of a national police station shall be made to the head of a prison, detention house, or national police station. As such, the head of a prison, etc., is a kind of legal representative for the service of the capital re-delivery. Thus, if the service of the capital re-delivery was conducted without the warden of a prison, etc., the service of the service is null and void, and even if the court of the lawsuit delivers the capital to the former domicile and residence without knowing the identification of the party or the person involved in the litigation, the service shall be made identical and shall not take effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da6009, Mar. 11, 2003; 82Meu349, Dec. 28, 1982). As long as the service itself becomes null and void, the service of the capital even if it becomes known by any other means of the previous domicile and residence.

In addition, if the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance is not legally served, the appeal period against the judgment is not run, so it cannot be deemed that the judgment became formally final and conclusive, therefore the problem of the subsequent completion of litigation cannot be raised, and the appeal against the judgment is lawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da4549 Decided December 22, 1994). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the health care unit in this case; the judgment of the first instance was sentenced to the absence of the Defendant on February 8, 2018; and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant’s previous domicile on February 12, 2018 and received L of the Defendant’s child; the Defendant was detained on July 6, 2017 and was released on March 5, 2018. The fact that the Defendant submitted the written appeal of this case on June 20, 2018 is obvious or obvious.