1. The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed;

2. The instant counterclaim claim filed by the court is filed in the principal lawsuit.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

(a)The following facts of the recognition are recognized by records or are remarkable in this Court:

1) On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant principal suit against the Defendant, and entered the Defendant’s address in Kimcheon-si, and the court of first instance served the duplicate of the instant principal complaint to the Defendant’s domicile, but became impossible to serve due to absence of closure. Upon the Plaintiff’s application for special delivery of the Defendant’s place of service following the order to rectify the address on July 7, 2017, the court of first instance served the Defendant Kimcheon-si D building and E, the enforcement officer affiliated with the court of first instance directly served the copy of the instant principal complaint at around 18:20 on July 13, 2017. Upon the Defendant’s refusal to serve the date without justifiable grounds, the said enforcement officer kept the duplicate of the instant principal complaint on the part of the Defendant’s use at the said place of service on the date of pleading on which the Defendant appeared at the court of first instance on December 13, 2017, the Defendant served the notice at the court of second instance on the date of pleading No. 21, 21, 20.

In addition, the Defendant appeared at the date of pleading on March 8, 2018, May 3, 2018, May 4, 2018, and June 7, 2018, respectively. The court of first instance notified the date of pronouncement to July 14, 2018, when closing the pleading on the date of pleading on the fifth date of pleading.

3) On July 13, 2018 and July 20, 2018, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in the absence of the original and the Defendant on the date of sentencing, and sent the original copy of the judgment of the first instance to the domicile reported by the Defendant as the service place, but is not served due to the absence of closure, and on August 6, 2018, served the Defendant with the original copy of the judgment of the first instance by means of service by public notice, and on August 21, 2018, the effect of service by public notice came into effect on August 21, 2018. 4) The Defendant had the lapse of the appeal period thereafter on September 14, 2018.