beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal
A. On April 21, 2010, the summary of the party’s assertion (1) sent by the court of first instance to the Defendant (Appellant) and delivered to K a copy, etc. of the instant complaint to D who was working for the Defendant on April 21, 2010. On April 201, the Defendant already withdrawn from D and was not working for the said company at the time of delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and the Defendant was not aware of the progress of the instant lawsuit in the first instance trial due to the said K’s failure to receive the duplicate of the instant complaint from the said K, and was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s account was provisionally seized, and submitted the instant appeal for subsequent completion. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion is lawful.
(2) As the Plaintiff (Appellant) dealt with the business in D by September 2010, the duplicate of the instant complaint was lawfully served on the Defendant, and accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful, on the ground that it did not know the fact of the judgment of the first instance court of this case due to the Defendant’s fault.
B. (1) The service of the legal principle (A) is, in principle, conducted at the domicile, residence, business office, or premises of the person to be served, or when the service is not possible at the domicile, residence, or business office of the person to be served, the service may be made at the domicile, etc. of another person to be served by the person to be served with employment, delegation, or other legal acts (hereinafter “work place”). (Article 183(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act; (b) in addition, service by the person to be served with the service; or (c) in a case where the service agency fails to summon the person to be served at the above work place, the service agency may be made by a supplementary service to the other employee, who is man of sense of judgment as an employee (Article 186(2) of the same Act); and (d) in this context, “work staff to be the recipient in supplementary service” does not necessarily require an employment relationship with the person