1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Basic Facts

The following facts are significant or obvious to this court in terms of records:

On February 2, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint to the first instance court against the Defendant, etc. on February 2, 2018, and after receiving an application for fact-finding, the Plaintiff was named as “the Defendant’s domicile on April 17, 2018, as the Defendant’s resident registration address C and D (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendant’s domicile”).

(1) On April 27, 2018, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint of this case and a litigation guide, etc. on the Defendant’s domicile as the Defendant’s domicile. However, on May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff was not served on the Defendant due to the absence of closure. On May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a special delivery of the complaint of this case, etc. to the Defendant’s domicile (a written correction of address requesting the night delivery), and the first instance court issued an execution officer’s order on May 21, 2018, and on May 29, 2018, the Defendant directly received the documents, such as a duplicate of the complaint of this case, at the Defendant’s domicile.

Since then, the first instance court served the notice of the first date for pleading, the notice of the sentencing date, etc. in sequence by means of dispatch and service.

After the court of first instance sentenced the judgment on July 26, 2018, the court of first instance sent the original copy of the judgment to the defendant's domicile on the following day, but the original copy of the judgment was not served as a closed door absence.

Accordingly, on August 7, 2018, the first instance court served the defendant with an original copy of the judgment of the first instance by public notice, and on August 22, 2018, the above service by public notice became effective.

On September 21, 2018, after the period of appeal of two weeks from the date the service by public notice became effective, the defendant submitted to the first instance court the written appeal of this case.

The defendant asserted that the appeal to complete completion is lawful is served on the defendant by means of service by public notice by the court of first instance, and the defendant could not have known that the original copy of the judgment was served on the defendant. The plaintiff was based on the judgment of the court of first instance of this case around September 7, 2018.