2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. On April 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order with the Defendant, seeking KRW 14,010,000,000 for the amount of non-paid private goods and goods. The original copy of the payment order was served on May 22, 2016 as “former North Changbuk-gun,” a resident registration address of the Defendant, and the Defendant received it.

B. On May 30, 2016, the Defendant submitted a written objection against the above payment order, and the instant payment order was executed as a lawsuit.

Even after the first instance court served documents such as notice of the date of pleading and the date of sentencing on several occasions at the defendant's domicile, each of the above documents was sent as a service, but the absence of closure was continued.

C. On December 13, 2016, the first instance court sentenced the judgment of the first instance on December 13, 2016, and served the original copy of the said judgment to the Defendant’s domicile, but the same does not apply to the case where the original copy of the said judgment was not served due to the absence of closure, the said original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant on January 10, 2017.

On June 26, 2019, the defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion.

[Grounds for recognition] The court's significant facts and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion refers to the grounds why the parties are unable to observe the period despite the parties’ due diligence for conducting the procedural acts. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of service during the process of litigation is served by public notice, and thus, the parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice. Thus, if the parties fail to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be deemed that the parties are due to the grounds for not being held responsible.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). The above basic facts are based.