The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, at the first instance court, the Defendant reported “Cheongju-si Party E” and “F” as the delivery place, and the first instance court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on August 9, 2016. The Plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal to the first instance court on August 19, 2016 and stated “Cheongju-si Party E” as the service place other than the Defendant’s address. The lower court served the notice of a copy of the petition of appeal and the date for pleading as the service place, and received F in the capacity of general affairs members, and the lower court affirmed the first instance court’s judgment on April 12, 2017 and rendered a partial favorable judgment of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant submitted the petition of appeal to the lower court on June 1, 2017.

However, in principle, delivery of documents to the person to be served at the domicile, residence, or office of the person to be served is in principle delivered to the person to be served (Articles 178(1) and 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). If the service agency fails to interview the person to be served at the above place, it may be based on a supplementary service to his office worker, employee, or cohabitant (Article 186(1) of the same Act). On the other hand, the effect of the service-receiving person’s report shall be limited to the corresponding court. In this case, the “Cheong-gu Civil Procedure E” on which a duplicate, etc. of the petition of appeal was served is seen as the Defendant’s domicile, temporary domicile, temporary domicile, business office, etc., or the “F” on which a duplicate, etc. of the petition of appeal was served as the Defendant’s office clerk, employee, or cohabitant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that all copies, etc. of

On the other hand, the defendant was served by illegal means from the duplicate of the petition of appeal, and without any cause attributable to it, was not aware of the fact that the appeal was filed, and the defendant was present at this situation.