1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on May 17, 2013 as deeming the withdrawal of the Defendant’s appeal.

2. After filing an application for designation of the date.

1. The following facts are apparent in the records:

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the “IBL H in In Incheon, Seo-gu, as the Defendant’s domicile. However, the Plaintiff did not serve the Defendant at the above address, and upon submitting the Defendant’s resident registration abstract, revised the Defendant’s address to the “J building K (hereinafter “instant address”), which is the Defendant’s domicile on the above abstract, as the Defendant’s domicile, and thereafter, the Defendant was served while living in the instant address.

On May 16, 2012, the court of first instance declared a judgment of the first instance on the content of accepting the Plaintiff’s claim. On June 7, 2012, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance on June 7, 2012, and submitted a petition of appeal stating the address of the instant case being served by the Defendant himself since the first instance court below indicated the Defendant.

B. When the court of the trial delivered the notice of the second date for pleading (3. 26. 26. 201) to the Defendant, the appellant, to the instant address, but it was impossible to serve the notice of the second date for pleading (3. 11:40 on March 26, 2013), the court of the trial did not have any specific place for service of the Defendant on the records of the instant case other than the instant address, and sent the notice of the date for pleading to the said address on February 21, 2013, and the Plaintiff’s agent did not present

C. In addition, the court of the trial held that the notice of the third date for pleading (No. 11:00 on April 16, 2013) was again sent to the Defendant to the instant address, but it was impossible to serve the Defendant three-time notification due to the absence of closure. On April 10, 2013, the notice of the date for pleading was sent to the said address by registered mail, and the Defendant was again not present on the said date, and the Plaintiff’s agent did not present on the said date, and thus

On May 17, 2013, when the defendant, who is the appellant under Articles 286, 268(4), and 268(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, has been absent twice at the date of pleading, and the plaintiff did not present at each time, the court of the trial.