beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph 1.
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. The Defendant’s appeal of this case by the Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful as it does not satisfy the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.
B. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On May 21, 2015, the court of first instance served a duplicate of the complaint on May 21, 2015, on the Plaintiff’s domicile, Hongsung-gun F, the Defendant’s address indicated in the complaint, but returned on May 12, 2015, the Plaintiff’s address was corrected to Seosan-si G (hereinafter “instant domicile”). On May 20, 2015, the court of first instance served a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant on the instant domicile and served on May 26, 2015. The service report stated that “H received general affairs of the Defendant,” and that the Defendant received the original copy of the judgment on July 14, 2015, which became aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered on May 20, 2015, and that the Defendant had become aware of the original copy of the judgment on May 25, 2015.
그런데 을 제1, 3호증(각 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다)의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 피고는 토목건축공사업 등을 목적으로 하던 회사로서 충청남도에 건설업 폐업 신고를 하여 2012. 10. 29.자로 수리된 사실, 피고의 사업자등록도 2013. 3. 31. 직권말소된 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실 및 피고는 위 소장 부본 송달 당시 이 사건 주소지에서 영업을 하지 않았고, H는 피고의 사무원이 아니며 알지도 못하는 사람이라고 주장하는데, 이 법원의 서산세무서에 대한 과세정보제출명령 회신결과에 의하면, 피고가 2015년 직원들에게 급여를...