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...

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the appeal of this case

A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant had resided in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, 809 Dong 1404, which was the parent's house at the time of the progress of the first instance trial, but was served as the parent's house located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Seoul, where all the Defendant had resided before the date of pleading, and the original copy of the judgment.

Therefore, since the defendant was unable to lawfully receive the complaint of the first instance court, notice of the date of pleading, and original copy of the judgment, the period of appeal did not run. Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case is lawful.

B. In principle, the place of service is the domicile, temporary domicile, place of business, office of the person to be served (main sentence of Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and 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 of judgment.

(1) Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that such supplementary service shall be made at the place of original delivery, which is ultimately premised on the possibility of being received by the person to be served with the principal, and “a person who lives together with the same household as the person who is the title holder to be served with the service” under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to only a person who actually belongs to the same household and actually lives together

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98423, Apr. 25, 2013). Meanwhile, if the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was not lawfully delivered, the appeal period against the said judgment does not run as long as the period of appeal is not run. Therefore, the issue of subsequent completion of litigation does not arise, and an appeal against such judgment is lawful and is filed before the service of the original copy of the judgment of the court

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da10345, May 30, 1997). In this case, arguments are made in the statement No. 1 of evidence No. 1.