1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance No. 1 and No. 2 are subject to objection.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. As a matter of principle, service by delivery of documents to the person to be served on the person in question at his domicile, residence, business office or office of the person to be served (Articles 178(1) and 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), or by supplementary service, if the service agency fails to retain the person to receive the service at the above place, such service may be made by supplementary service, as his/her clerk, employee, or cohabitant, which is delivered to the person with intelligence to make reasonable judgment.

(Article 186(1)(b) of the same Act.

On May 22, 2016, the court of first instance sent a copy, etc. of the complaint of this case to the defendant's resident registration "Seoul-si D" (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul-si D"), which is the defendant's domicile, to "E" (hereinafter referred to as "the domicile of this case"), and the court of first instance thereafter did not submit a written response. The court of first instance sent a notice of adjudication date to the defendant to the domicile of this case. However, this was not served on the date of August 29, 2016; on August 30, 2016; on August 31, 2016; on September 5, 2016, the original copy of the judgment was not sent to the court of first instance for the reason that it was not sent for the absence of a written statement; on September 5, 2016, the court of first instance delivered the original copy to the defendant to the court of second instance for the reason that it was not sent for the second instance on September 21, 2016.

C. According to the above relevant provisions and the above factual relations, the defendant was residing or worked in the Dogwon located in the domicile of this case at that time.