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. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and the court of first instance served a duplicate of the complaint as “Bcheon-si E,” the Defendant’s domicile, and received it on January 2, 2017.

On February 10, 2017, when the defendant did not submit a written answer even after receiving a duplicate of the complaint, the court of first instance served a written notice of the pronouncement date for non-dival proceedings on the same place and received it by the defendant himself.

On February 20, 2017, the Defendant submitted a written response, and the court of first instance reached the Defendant on February 24, 2017 by submitting the instant lawsuit to conciliation with 2017 money512623 on the same day.

On April 18, 2017, there was a decision on the failure of mediation on the case to be referred to mediation.

B. On June 1, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on June 1, 2017, following pleading, by sending a notice of the date of pleading and a notice of pronouncement to the Defendant’s address, but not being served due to the absence of closure.

C. On June 14, 2017, the court of first instance ordered the defendant's address to serve by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance by public notice to the defendant. On the 29th of the same month, the service of the original copy of the judgment became effective.

The Defendant submitted the instant written appeal on September 4, 2017, more than 14 days after the date of service of the original copy of the said judgment.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Although the original copy of the judgment against the defendant alleged by the defendant was impossible to be served due to the lack of closure, it is inappropriate for the court of first instance to make a decision by public notice without going through the night special service, etc., it cannot be said that the defendant was negligent in not knowing the fact that the court of first instance rendered the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant received a certified copy of the judgment on September 2, 2017.