The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiff's claim expanded and reduced in this court, shall be modified as follows:

1. We examine whether the appeal of this case is lawful, in principle, at the address, residence, place of business, or office of the person to be served (hereinafter referred to as "resident, etc.") (Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The place of business or office refers to the business or office of the person to be served, and the place of business or office of the person to be served does not fall under the working place of the person to be served (see Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). According to Article 183(2) of the Civil Procedure Act stipulating the service at the working place, the service at the working place may be conducted only when the person to be served is either aware of the address, etc. of the person to be served at the working place or is unable to be served at that place. Thus, the service at the working place without attempting to serve the address, etc. described in the written

(2) On July 21, 2004, the plaintiff submitted the complaint of this case on July 23, 2009, the plaintiff stated the defendant's address as "Seoul Housing Jho-ho, the service place" as "Seoul G 1st L agency, Gangdong-gu, Seoul. The court of first instance shall deliver the copy of the complaint of this case to the L agency, which is not the defendant's domicile from the beginning and received the copy of the complaint of this case on August 4, 2009. The court of first instance received it on August 4, 2009. After the defendant did not submit a written response, the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance as the same place on October 27, 2009, and M, the workplace rent, received it on November 27, 2009, or received it on August 12, 2018.

According to this, the first instance court.