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. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. The following facts are significant in this Court:

1) On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant for payment of KRW 900,000 of remuneration for auction consulting and damages for delay thereof. 2) On May 8, 2017, the court of first instance sent a duplicate of the instant complaint to the Defendant. On May 12, 2017, the Defendant received a duplicate of the instant complaint from the enforcement officer, and submitted a written answer on May 23, 2017.

3) On June 2, 2017, the court of first instance sent the notice of the date for pleading to the Defendant’s domicile. However, when the delivery was impossible due to the absence of a closed door, the court rendered a service by registered mail to the said address on June 13, 2017, and the Defendant was absent on the said date for pleading. (4) The court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on July 7, 2017. The original of the judgment also became impossible to serve the original of the judgment on August 3, 2017.

5 The Defendant submitted the instant written appeal to the court of first instance on October 10, 2017 after the lapse of two weeks from August 17, 2017, when the service of the original copy of the judgment by public notice became effective.

B. The summary of the defendant's assertion is not the domicile but the defendant is residing in the former week at the workplace, and a low person does not reside at the domicile.

In addition to the defendant's domicile, the defendant was served with an execution officer or a duplicate of the complaint of this case in the Jeonju District Court's regular branch court, and subsequent litigation documents were not served at all.

The court of first instance dealt with the service after the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance also sent by public notice. It is unlawful to serve by public notice without re-service by means of supplementary service, etc.

Since the Defendant issued the original copy of the instant judgment at the court of first instance on September 26, 2017 and became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was rendered at that time, the instant appeal for subsequent completion is lawful.

(c) a specific determination;