물품대금
1. The appeal of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
1. Whether the appeal filed by the defendant is lawful
(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent in, or obvious to, the record:
1) The vice branch of the Incheon District Court sent the original copy of the instant payment order and the letter of demand procedure guidance to the Defendant’s resident registration to Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, 105 Dong 2202, and received the Defendant’s above documents on February 23, 2015. (2) The Defendant submitted a written objection against the payment order on March 3, 2015, and submitted it to the litigation procedure.
3) On June 18, 2015, the court of first instance: (a) designated the date for pleading and sent a written notice of the date for pleading as of June 18, 2015; (b) the C received the said notice on May 11, 2015; and (c) the Defendant submitted to the court of first instance an application for change of the date on June 12, 2015; (d) the court of first instance accepted the application by the Defendant for change of the date for pleading and sent a written notice of change to designate the date for pleading as of July 16, 2015; and (c) on July 6, 2015, the C received it, but
5) On July 16, 2015, the court of first instance sentenced the judgment by opening the date for the first pleading, and sent the original copy of the judgment to the address where the Defendant was served prior to the date of service, and as the original copy of the judgment was not served due to the absence of text or unknown address, on August 17, 2015, the original copy of the judgment was served by means of service by public notice (the above service was effective on September 1, 2015).
(6) On October 8, 2015, the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case.
B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the time limit even though the party fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. Therefore, where the service of documents in the process of the lawsuit was impossible and the service of documents in the process of the lawsuit was made in a manner of service by public notice as a result of the impossibility of being served, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning to the point of view.