1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,001,00 as well as the period from November 3, 2013 to April 14, 2015.

1. As to this defense

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s assertion was residing in the domicile from June 28, 2012 to the trial court, and that on May 26, 2014, the Daejeon District Court confirmed the auction guide of the execution officer of Seosan Branch, attached at the entrance of the Defendant’s domicile, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant intentionally avoided the receipt of the original judgment of the first instance court.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is unlawful because the appeal period has expired.

B. If the original copy, etc. of the judgment was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. In such a case, the defendant constitutes a case where the peremptory term is unable to be observed due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. Here, the term "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the parties or legal representatives have known of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the parties or legal representatives knew of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the parties or legal representatives have become aware of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). C.

Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in the records or in full view of the purpose of all pleadings:

1 The copy of the complaint in this case was served by mail at F apartment 102, 306, the Plaintiff entered as the Defendant’s domicile, but became impossible to serve due to the absence of a closed door on June 12, 2013, and the court of first instance shall entrust the Daejeon District Court’s enforcement officer.