On May 22, 2014, the Defendant served as “Y, Yangju-si,” a new building located in the name of the construction permit holder, and F received it as the Defendant’s employee’s qualification, and the fact that the Defendant filed an objection to the subsequent completion of the payment order on April 13, 2018 is apparent in records.

Service, at a domicile, temporary domicile, business office or office of the person to be served (Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), delivery to the person to be served, in principle, may be effected by delivery to the person to be served, or, if the service agency fails to summon the person to be served at the aforementioned place, by means of a supplementary service to be served by his clerk, employee, or cohabitant, who is man of sense;

(Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. A clerical staff who can be an agent for receipt in the supplementary service stipulated in Article 186(1) of the same Act does not necessarily have an employment relationship with the person receiving the service, and there is sufficient person who assists in the business on behalf of the person in question.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1540, Jan. 30, 2009). The Defendant’s “Y” whose original copy of the instant payment order was delivered to the Defendant does not have any evidence to regard it as the Defendant’s domicile, residence, business office, or office. Since F, who received the original copy of the instant payment order for the Defendant, did not have any evidence to see it as the Defendant’s office, employee, or cohabitant, it is reasonable to view that the service of the original copy of the instant payment order for the Defendant was null and void.

Since the service of the original payment order should be made in order to determine the payment order, the service of the original payment order is illegal and invalid.