1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff and the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

1. We examine ex officio the procedure of the first instance court’s judgment and the legality of the Defendant’s appeal ex officio. We examine the legality of the Defendant’s appeal.

Article 183 (Place of Service) (1) of the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act shall be limited to the domicile, temporary domicile, domicile, or business office

Article 186 (Supplementary Service, Custody and Service) (1) If a person to receive service has not been present at the place of service other than his/her place of service, the document may be delivered to his/her office worker, employee or cohabitant with the capability to make reasonable judgment.

B. The “place to be served” under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act does not necessarily mean that the “place to be served” is limited to the domicile of the person to be served with the resident registration, and the “Dong” also refers to only the person who actually belongs to the same household as the person to be served with the same household as the person to be served with the same document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2000Ma5732, Oct. 28, 2000; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). In a case where the original judgment was not served lawfully, the appeal period against the judgment does not run, and the judgment is not formally finalized, and therefore, the appeal against the judgment is lawful as it was filed prior to the delivery of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da4549 delivered on December 22, 1994, and Supreme Court Decision 97Da10354 delivered on May 30, 1997, etc.).

According to the records of this case, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the deceased C on January 9, 2017, but it was found that the deceased C died before the instant lawsuit was filed, and on February 8, 2017, the Defendant’s mother, the Defendant’s mother, and the Defendant filed an application for rectification of the party’s indication with the Defendant, and for modification of the purport of the claim, indicated the Defendant’s address as “Seoul Gwangjin-gu, Seoul,” and the first instance court.