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. Ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

(a) The facts below the facts of recognition are apparent in, or obvious to, the record;

1) At the time of July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant and C (Divorce, March 2, 2018), who was a legally married couple, and the Defendant and C (Divorce, March 2, 2018). (2) On August 2, 2016, the first instance court issued a duplicate of the instant complaint to the Defendant and C, but became unable to serve the instant complaint due to the addressee’s unknownness, ordered the Plaintiff to rectify the address. In response, the Plaintiff revised the address of the Defendant and C to “h apartment and I”, which is the domicile of the Defendant and C living together.

3) On August 23, 2016, the court of first instance served an execution officer again to the address corrected as above. On August 26, 2016, the notice of reasons for service, which received copies of the instant complaint from the Defendant and C himself/herself at his/her domicile on August 26, 2016, but entered that the signature and seal were refused. 4) The court of first instance served each notice of the sentencing date to the Defendant and C on October 6, 2016, but sent the notice to the Defendant and C, which became impossible to serve due to the absence of closure, and the first instance judgment was served to the Defendant and C on November 2, 2016, but also became impossible to serve due to an unknown director.

On November 9, 2016, the court of first instance served the judgment by means of service by public notice, and on November 24, 2016, the service by public notice became effective.

5 The Defendant filed an appeal after the subsequent completion of the instant case on February 12, 2018 after two weeks elapsed from the date on which the judgment of the first instance was served.

B. Unlike the Defendant’s written notice of the reasons for service, the Defendant did not directly receive the duplicate of the instant complaint, but C did not notify the Defendant of the fact that it received the duplicate of the instant complaint solely in mind to resolve the instant lawsuit.

After all, the defendant, before being issued an original copy of the judgment of the first instance court on February 5, 2018, can identify the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice.