The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. The Plaintiff filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on March 20, 2015, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was served a notice of the order to specify the property based on the judgment of the first instance court on December 10, 2014, and the judgment of the first instance court was rendered. Therefore, the instant subsequent completion appeal is unlawful, and the instant subsequent completion appeal is deemed unlawful.

B. According to the records, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant for the payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant on February 2, 2010, but the payment order was impossible to be served and implemented as litigation procedures. On September 29, 2010, the court of first instance issued an order to serve the Defendant by public notice, and issued a copy of the complaint and the notice of date for pleading by public notice on February 11, 2011, and issued a judgment of the first instance on March 18, 2011 upon the absence of the Defendant on the date for pleading. The original judgment was sent to the Defendant by public notice on March 26, 2011, and its delivery became effective on March 26, 201, and the Plaintiff’s request for inspection and delivery on October 13, 2014 to the Defendant on March 20, 201, based on the Seoul Southern District Court Order No. 20147, Oct. 24, 2014.

C. With respect to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case, if a public health room, a copy of the complaint, an original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where he was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him