1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant case shall be remanded to the Ulsan District Court ( single judge).

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of this case, or obvious to this court:

On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, stating the Defendant’s address as “Ulsan Jung-gu C and 403 movement to technological innovation.”

B. On May 26, 2016, the first instance court served a duplicate of the instant complaint to the above address. D, the Defendant’s director, received it on May 30, 2016.

C. On July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted an application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim. On July 6, 2016, the first instance court served the above application to the above address, and when it was impossible to serve it due to the addressee’s unknown, the Plaintiff served it on July 19, 2016.

After that, the first instance court served a notice of the date of sentencing to the above address on July 21, 2016, as the Defendant did not submit a written response, and served the notice on the date of sentencing to the above address on July 21, 2016, and as the above notice is not served to the addressee as the addressee is unknown, the notice was served by the method of delivery on August 9, 2016, and rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on August 12, 201

E. On August 12, 2016, the first instance court served the original copy of the judgment at the above address, but was unable to serve it due to an addressee’s unknown address, and served it by means of service on August 24, 2016, and on September 8, 2016, the service became effective.

F. On the other hand, on May 19, 2016, the Defendant transferred the head office from the above address to Busan Gangseo-gu E, and registered it on May 23, 2016. At the time, D’s director D, who had remaining in the location of the former head office, received the duplicate of the instant complaint.

G. The Defendant was unable to receive a duplicate of the instant complaint from D, and was unaware of the facts of the instant lawsuit and the rendering of a judgment, and filed a subsequent appeal on October 21, 2016.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) The provisions on legal representation and legal representative under the Civil Procedure Act are applied mutatis mutandis to the representative of a corporation (the service on a legal entity under Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Act).