1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. Unless there are special circumstances, if the original copy of a complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus, the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, in ordinary cases, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006).

The following facts are clear on the records.

1) On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of loans and delayed damages therefor with the first instance court. On May 14, 2015, the first instance court rendered a decision of performance recommendation to the effect that the Plaintiff may accept the Plaintiff’s claim in full. A certified copy of the said decision of performance recommendation, a certified copy of the litigation guide, and a certified copy of the document of performance recommendation (hereinafter “certified copy, etc.”) are “certified copy,

(2) On May 3, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff at the Defendant’s address as “Secheon-si C,” but was not served on May 20, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff was not closed, upon the first instance court’s order of correction on June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff changed the Defendant’s address to “Secheon-si D,” which is the Defendant’s resident registration address at the time of the first instance court’s order of correction, but was impossible to serve as a closed door on June 8, 2015, and the night service by enforcement officer on June 30, 2015 became impossible to serve as a director’s unknown.

3. On July 8, 2015, the first instance court served on the defendant.