1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the delivery of the instant litigation documents, including the complaint, and the judgment of the first instance court, was made by means of service by public notice, and rather, the Defendant intentionally avoided the receipt of litigation documents, etc., the Defendant’s appeal to the effect that the subsequent appeal is unlawful.

If litigation documents, including a complaint, and judgment were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks from the date on which such reason ceases to exist because he/she was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

In this case, the court of first instance tried to serve documents including the complaint of this case on several occasions, "Seoul Yongsan-gu F" or "Seoul H, 201, which is the domicile of the defendant's head office at the time of the filing of the lawsuit of this case" or "Seoul H, Gangnam-gu H, 201, which is the domicile of the representative director G, but the documents including the complaint of this case were not served due to the absence of documents and the addressee's unknown address. In the end, the court of first instance sentenced the plaintiff's winning on April 9, 2014 after serving documents, such as the complaint of this case, by service by public notice, and sentenced the plaintiff's winning on April 9, 2014. The defendant also served the defendant by means of service by public notice. The fact that the defendant filed an appeal for the completion of the lawsuit of this case on January 13, 2015 is apparent in records, and the defendant intentionally failed to receive the documents and judgment of this case, only

The appeal of this case is lawful, and as a result, the appeal of this case is based on the grounds that the defendant was not able to observe the period of appeal due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, such as the progress and result of the lawsuit of this case or the decision of the court, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.