1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the above revocation shall be dismissed.

2...

1. The Defendant, on July 27, 2004, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale as of February 3, 2010, under the Changwon District Court No. 18583, which was received on March 25, 2010, as the receipt No. 18583, on the part of Non-Party J, which purchased from Non-Party G, Sungwon-gu E apartment 207 Dong 1804 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. First of all, we examine the legality of the subsequent appeal of this case by their own authority on the legality of the subsequent appeal of this case.

On October 1, 2015, the first instance court served a duplicate of the instant complaint to M on October 1, 2015. N received it on October 6, 2015. The service report on the duplicate of the instant complaint is indicated as the Defendant’s punishment living together with N. In the latter case, the court of first instance served a notice on the Defendant as the domicile of the Defendant, but it was impossible to serve the notice due to the absence of closure. The above notice was sent to the said domicile on November 27, 2015, and the first instance court served the original copy on the said domicile, but it was also impossible to serve the original copy on the said domicile due to the absence of closure, and the service was served on the Defendant by public notice on January 19, 2016, and the service report on the duplicate of the instant complaint became effective on February 17, 2016, and the Defendant submitted the record to the court of first instance on February 17, 2016.

However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant can be recognized as having been registered as a resident of Changwon-gu, Changwon-gu, 114 Dong 3301, who is not M at the time of service of the copy of the complaint in this case, which is the address stated in the service report at the time of service of the copy of the complaint in this case. Accordingly, since N cannot be deemed as a person living together with the same household as the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the service of the copy of

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered by service by public notice.