대여금
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 following facts are either a dispute between the parties or a record.
On December 4, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) concerning loans against the Defendant with the Seoul District Court Decision 2012j4260, Namyang-si, Seoul District Court (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”).
B. On December 24, 2012, the above court issued an order to pay “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,00,000,000 per annum from December 23, 2002 to the service date of the instant payment order, 5% per annum, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.”
C. On December 28, 2012, the notice of postal service indicated that the Defendant himself/herself received the original copy of the instant payment order and the letter of demanding procedure guidance (for the obligor) at the Defendant’s address.
After that, on January 10, 2013, the above court received a written objection against the instant payment order under the name of the defendant on January 9, 2013, and the above written objection affixed the seal of the defendant.
E. In the above case of loans to the above court 2013Gada3727, the court of first instance attempted to serve a notice on the date for pleading at the Defendant’s address, but was able to serve due to the addressee’s unknown reasons, and the delivery of the notice on the date for pleading was made.
F. In addition, although the court of first instance attempted to serve the original copy of the judgment at the above address, it was dealt with due to the addressee’s unknown reasons.
On July 31, 2013, service by public notice of the original judgment of the first instance court against the defendant was made.
G. Since then, the Defendant filed an appeal subsequent to the instant completion on August 19, 2016.
2. Judgment on the legitimacy of the appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion of this case
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the original judgment of the first instance court of this case was served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and the Defendant should only reach the time of August 19, 2016, which submitted the subsequent appeal of this case.