1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. The summary of the party's assertion 1) The duplicate, etc. of the instant complaint sent by the court of first instance to C, who is an employee of the other business chain, not the defendant's employee, was delivered to C, and thus, the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint is unlawful. The defendant becomes aware that C was unable to receive the duplicate of the instant complaint from C and was sentenced to the first instance court's decision, and immediately submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is lawful. 2) Since the plaintiff C received the documents of the lawsuit related to the defendant sent from the previous court as the defendant's employee and the defendant's employee, the duplicate of the instant complaint was lawful.

The defendant was aware of the fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed, but the defendant did not observe the appeal period because he did not investigate the progress of the lawsuit in the first instance trial, and the appeal by the defendant is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) In principle, the delivery of documents to the person to be served at his domicile, temporary domicile, business office, or office of the person to be served on the person to be served, in principle (Articles 178(1) and 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). However, if the delivery agency fails to visit the person to serve on the person at the above place, a supplementary service may be made by means of a supplementary service delivered to him as his clerk, employee, or cohabitant (Article 186(1)2 of the same Act) (Article 186(2) of the records of this case and evidence 6-1 through 3, and evidence 1-1 through 5-5 of the evidence No. 1, the following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the first instance court on December 24, 2015.

C. The duplicate, etc. of the complaint of this case were sent, and C.