A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant, the High Government District Court issued a payment order under 2014 tea59 to the High Government Branch, and the original copy of the payment order was served on the Defendant on January 20, 2014. The Defendant filed an objection against the instant payment order on August 30, 2018, which was 14 days after the said 14 days passed thereafter, and thus, the Defendant’s objection is unlawful.

B. According to the records, on January 14, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 9 million and damages for delay with the Defendant’s address at the Goyang-gu Seoul District Court Goyang-si Branch D (hereinafter “the address of this case”). The above court issued the payment order of this case on January 15, 2014 to the address of this case. The original copy of the payment order against the Defendant was sent to the Defendant. The above court sent the original copy of the payment order to the Defendant to the address of this case. However, the Defendant resided in the address of this case from May 24, 2010 to September 15, 201, only from September 15, 2011 to September 20, 2018, and the Defendant only resided in the apartment house of this case, and the Defendant can be recognized as the Defendant’s residence in the apartment house of this case.

As above, since the original copy of the instant payment order was served not only to the place where the defendant was living in the past but also to E who is not related to the defendant, the service of the original copy of the instant payment order against the defendant shall be deemed null and void.

Therefore, since the original of the payment order has not yet been served on the defendant, the objection period against the payment order in this case shall be raised.