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. According to the records of recognition, the following facts are recognized.

A. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the network D and E as Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea17577, and the Plaintiff filed an application for the said demand procedure to bring an action against D and E where the death of D and E was revealed, and the instant case was implemented in the demand procedure.

B. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff, co-defendant C, and F, the heir of D, withdrawn the lawsuit against F in the first instance court.

On July 21, 2015, the heir of E, filed a request for correction of the indication of the party, purport of the claim, and request for change of the cause of the claim against the co-defendant G and the Defendant. On July 21, 2015, the court of first instance served a duplicate of the complaint of this case (payment order) and a copy of the application for correction of the indication of the said party, purport of the claim, and the application for change of the cause of the claim, as “Seocheon-gu H apartment and I”, which is the Defendant’s address. On August 27, 2015, the court of first instance

C. While the first instance court tried to serve a written statement of the purport of the claim and the statement of the cause of the claim to the above address of the defendant on September 14, 2015, when it was unable to serve on three occasions due to the absence of closure, the service by registered mail was made on October 13, 2015, and again, on May 19, 2016, the first instance court tried to serve a notice of the date of pleading to the same address as the first date of pleading was designated on May 19, 2016, but the service by registered mail was not possible on May 17, 2016, and on May 19, 2016, the first instance court concluded the pleadings and sentenced the judgment as the defendant was not present on the first date of pleading opened on May 19, 2016.

The first instance court tried to serve the original of the judgment to the above address of the defendant, but it was impossible to serve the original of the judgment on three occasions due to the absence of closure, which was ordered on June 20, 2016 and served the original of the judgment by means of service by public notice on July 5, 2016.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

A. The defendant's assertion.