물품대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The facts under the following basic facts are remarkable or obvious in records to this court:
On March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Northern District Court for the instant payment order against the Defendant, claiming payment of KRW 7.6 million for service costs and delay damages therefor. On March 25, 2015, the said court issued the payment order to the said court as the said court’s 2015 tea1308.
On April 1, 2015, the original copy of the above payment order was received by the Defendant’s workplace Dong C in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 612, which is the Defendant’s workplace address stated in the application for the above payment order.
On April 8, 2015, the defendant submitted a written objection and a written answer with respect to the above payment order, and the above written objection and written answer were written in the place of service of the defendant as the place of service of the defendant.
B. In the litigation proceedings commenced by the Defendant’s filing of the foregoing objection, the first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 22, 2015, following the closure of the pleadings by opening the first date for pleading on July 22, 2015, after delivering the notice of the date for pleading to the Defendant at the address of the said place of business, but not being served on the addressee’s unknown address.
On August 4, 2015, the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment by means of service by public notice in accordance with the order of the presiding judge of the first instance court to serve by public notice, and on August 19, 2015, the service of the original copy of the judgment became effective at the time of August 19, 2015.
C. On November 20, 2015, 14 days after the date of arrival of the original copy of the judgment above, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for subsequent completion.
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case
A. As long as the original copy of the judgment was served by the method of service by public notice by order of the presiding judge ex officio, the requirements are not satisfied.
Even if the service is valid, the above judgment becomes final and conclusive formally as the time limit for appeal.