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 this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. On July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and the court of the first instance at the court of the same year.

8. On 20. 20. Along with the revised Defendant’s domicile, the Defendant sent a copy of the complaint and a written guidance of lawsuit to the “J of the Gyeongbuk-gun (hereinafter referred to as the “instant address”), which is the Defendant’s domicile, and the Defendant received the same on 25.

B. On October 8, 2014, the court of first instance served a notice of the sentencing date on the domicile of the instant case upon the Defendant’s failure to submit a written response, and the Defendant’s child K received the notice as the Defendant’s cohabitant on the 13th of the same month.

C. On November 11, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim, and served the original copy of the judgment on November 17, 2014 with the domicile of this case on the 17th of the same month, but is not served due to the absence of closure, and served by public notice on December 12 of the same year, and served the Defendant with the original copy on the 27th of the same month.

On February 4, 2015, the Defendant perused and copied the records of this case, and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on February 23, 2015.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant lawfully served the copy, etc. of the instant complaint without using the method of service by public notice, and received only the judgment of the first instance court by public notice, and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion with the period of appeal. As such, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful. 2) At the time of receipt of the duplicate of the instant complaint, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion was unlawful. The Defendant continued to engage in the wage case (hereinafter “related case”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Daegu District Court 2014Gau 5024 (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit”). As such, the instant lawsuit filed by the Defendant with respect to the relevant case, which was requested by the labor company, was for the purpose of nullifying the relevant case. In the relevant case, an agreement was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and