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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The following facts are apparent in the record or are significant in this court:

1) On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order seeking the payment of the acquisition amount under the instant court’s 2013th to 251534. On April 3, 2014, the said court rendered a ruling to refer the case to litigation proceedings of this case and implemented the instant judgment. 2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the acquisition amount equivalent to the amount stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “the instant claim”) on the same day when the Defendant was absent, after serving the Defendant with a copy of the complaint and a notice of the date of pleading by public notice.

3) On July 1, 2014, the court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance on the Defendant by public notice, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 16, 2014. (4) On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order against the Defendant, a third debtor, a new bank, the Incheon District Court, and the Incheon Livestock Industry Cooperatives, issued a seizure and collection order against the Defendant, a new bank, the third debtor, and the Incheon Livestock Industry Cooperatives. The said seizure and collection order was served on the third debtor on June 28, 2017.

On June 28, 2017, the defendant perused the records of the case in the above court.

5) On August 9, 2017, the Defendant filed the instant appeal to the court of first instance. (B) The instant appeal to the court of first instance. (1) Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist,” and where the first instance judgment was served by public notice, the term “when the cause ceases to exist” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is not simply the fact that the Defendant was a judgment, but further, the said judgment.