beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
In principle, the place of service of legal principles regarding the legality of the appeal of this case is the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business or office of the person to be served (main sentence of Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). If the person to be served was not present at the place of service other than the place of service, the document may be delivered to the office worker, employee, or cohabitant, who is man of sense, as his employee.
(1) Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The supplementary service shall be made at the original place of service, and ultimately, the last domicile of a person whose place is unknown on the premise of the possibility of receiving it from the person to be served shall not be deemed to be the place of service, and thus, the supplementary service, which is made at a time, shall not take effect unlawfully, and a person living together with the same household as the person to be served, refers to a person who belongs to the same household as the person to be served, and
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 200Ma5732, Oct. 28, 2000; Supreme Court Order 2012Da98423, Apr. 25, 2013). In addition, if the original copy of the judgment of the first instance is not legally served, the appeal period against the judgment does not run as long as the period for appeal against the judgment does not run formally, and thus, the judgment cannot be deemed to have become final and conclusive. Therefore, there is no problem in subsequent completion of procedural acts, and an appeal against the judgment is lawful as it was filed prior
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da4549, Dec. 22, 1994; 97Da10354, May 30, 1997). According to the records of recognition, the following facts are recognized.
The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant and C. The duplicate of the instant complaint was served on July 13, 2016, and on August 31, 2016, and on October 6, 2016, the original copy of the first instance judgment was served on the Gunsan F, which is the domicile of the Defendant and C on the resident registration of the Defendant and C. At the time, C, the Defendant’s spouse, was served on December 20, 201.