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. Judgment on the legitimacy of subsequent appeal

A. The Defendant asserted that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court of this case was served on November 8, 2018 by means of service by public notice, and the Defendant was served on the Defendant on May 14, 2019, and submitted an application for perusal and duplication to the first instance court around May 15, 2019, and became aware of the fact of the pronouncement and service of the judgment of the first instance court of this case.

Therefore, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period against the judgment of the court of first instance due to a cause not attributable to him, and the defendant filed a subsequent appeal on May 23, 2019 within two weeks from the date on which the cause has ceased to exist. Thus, the subsequent appeal by the defendant is lawful.

B. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

(1) On February 6, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a complaint without specifying the Defendant’s address. On March 20, 2018, the Plaintiff applied for a fact-finding on the Defendant’s address to the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. On April 4, 2018, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office sent the Defendant’s address to “Seoul Seocho-gu D,” and the Plaintiff submitted an application for party indication correction in accordance with the above response on April 19, 2018.

(2) On April 25, 2018, the first instance court served a copy, etc. of the instant complaint on the same domicile, but was not served on April 30, 2018 due to the unknown address. On May 15, 2018, the order was issued to the Plaintiff to correct the address. On May 15, 2018, when the Defendant’s resident registration abstract was confirmed to the same address as the above address, the Plaintiff applied for special delivery on May 23, 2018 to the above address (Gu address: Seocho-gu Seoul).

(3) On June 4, 2018, the first instance court served an execution officer with respect to the duplicate, etc. of the instant complaint as the above address, and was not served as a closed door absence around 22:00 on June 4, 2018, but on June 18, 2018, on June 10:50, the Defendant was directly served and signed on the receiver.

(d).