2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. The Defendant filed an order for payment with the Plaintiff on March 29, 2010, claiming that “the Plaintiff lent KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff on December 9, 2005,” with the Seogu District Court Branch Branch Branch Decision 2010 tea1383, and filed an application for the payment order with the said court to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 25 million won and damages for delay from January 1, 2016” (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on April 15, 2010.

B. On December 9, 2005, the Defendant filed an application for the instant payment order with the loan certificate (No. 2, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). The Defendant stated that “the loan certificate of this case prepared by the Plaintiff as the debtor shall return the principal amount of KRW 25 million up to December 31, 2005.”

C. As the Plaintiff did not perform his/her obligation under the instant payment order, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for entry in the defaulters’ list by the Daegu District Court 2017Kamin2069, which was decided on January 6, 2018 by the said court to register the Plaintiff in the defaulters’ list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was rendered by the first instance court that he was disqualified from compulsory execution based on the instant payment order, and filed an application for re-cancellation of the defaulters’ list, etc. on June 26, 2018 on the grounds thereof. As long as the written questioning of the obligee as to the above application for cancellation was served on the Defendant on July 16, 2018, the Defendant should be deemed to have known of the fact that there was the first instance judgment.

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed two weeks after the lapse of the appeal period is unlawful because it failed to observe the appeal period.

B. The Defendant, barring special circumstances, where the original copy, etc. of the judgment was served by public notice.