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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. On July 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. Around July 4, 2018. The first instance court, which is the Defendant’s domicile as indicated in the written complaint, “Y Young-si apartment and D” (hereinafter “the Defendant’s domicile”).

(2) On July 19, 2018, the Defendant received a copy, etc. of the complaint at the above address. (2) The Defendant did not submit a written response within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy, the written guide, etc. of the complaint within the deadline for submission.

On November 2, 2018, the first instance court, without holding any pleadings, designated the date of sentencing as the date of November 2, 2018, and served three times a notice of the date of sentencing to the domicile of the defendant, but all of the documents were not served due to the absence of closed documents, and served a notice of the date of sentencing on October 30, 2018 by serving the notice of the date of sentencing by registered mail.

3) On November 2, 2018, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (a judgment without pleading) while the Defendant was absent, and served the original copy of the judgment at the Defendant’s domicile three times, but all of the documents were not served on the ground of the absence of closure, and served the authentic copy of the judgment by public notice on November 19, 2018, and served on December 4, 2018, and served the authentic copy of the judgment by public notice on December 4, 2018. (iv) The Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for completion on January 28, 2019.

5) The Defendant’s domicile did not change from the time the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to the date of the closing of argument in this court. The fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the substantial fact in this court, and

B. As the Defendant’s notice of the sentencing date (non-statement) was not served due to the absence of a closed door, the first instance court immediately sent the notice without the method of re-delivery.

Therefore, even though the defendant was unable to appear due to the lack of knowledge of the designation of the sentencing date, the first instance court has rendered a judgment after it was sentenced.