1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

(a) The following facts are apparent in the records:

1) On September 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant (Seoul Western District Court 2017Kadan232047). (2) The first instance court sent a copy of the instant complaint to “Seoul Eunpyeong-gu H and 1st floor,” which is the Defendant’s domicile as indicated in the Defendant’s written complaint, but was unable to be served due to the absence of the written complaint. After being served by the enforcement officer on November 26, 2017, the Defendant directly received it.

3) On February 5, 2018, the court of first instance sent a notice of the date of pleading as of April 13, 2018 to the Defendant’s address above, and on February 9, 2018, the Defendant’s child I received the notice of the date of pleading above. 4) The Defendant was served with a duplicate of the instant complaint and did not submit a written response, and did not appear on the date of pleading on April 13, 2018.

5) On April 13, 2018, the court of first instance sent a notice of the sentencing date to the Defendant’s domicile above, and on April 20, 2018, the Defendant’s child J received the said notice of the sentencing date on April 20, 2018, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on April 27, 2018, and sent the original copy of the first instance judgment to the Defendant’s domicile as the Defendant’s address, but it was impossible to serve the original copy of the first instance judgment on May 4, 2018. Accordingly, on May 16, 2018, the service by public notice became effective on May 31, 2018.

7) On August 7, 2018, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal to the instant written appeal to the said written appeal to the effect that on July 30, 2018, upon the Plaintiff’s application to specify the property against the Defendant, the Defendant became aware that the first instance judgment was rendered by being served with a certified copy at the time of specification of property at the Defendant’s address on July 30, 2018. (B) Determination 1) As long as the certified copy of the relevant legal doctrine was served by service by public notice by the order of the presiding judge, the requirements are insufficient.

Even if the service is valid, the service is limited to the appeal period.