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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with the Busan District Court Branch Branch 2008 tea9505 with the Defendant, B, C, G, H, E, and F as the obligor.

However, the original copy of the payment order against the defendant et al. was impossible to be served, and the above court referred on June 9, 2009 part of the case of application for the above payment order to the litigation procedure.

B. The Defendant received the notice of the date of pleading on September 9, 2009 from the special room in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-ro, 117, the main text of the complaint, and on March 18, 2010, the notice of the date of pleading on September 18, 201, respectively.

However, the two-time notice of the date of pleading sent to Ulsan-gun I apartment No. 107, 1602, the address of the defendant at the time of the defendant, and the copy of the request for correction of the purport of the claim as of April 28, 2010 was not served as a closed door, and the delivery was made because it was not served as a copy of the request.

C. When the purport of the claim was expanded by submitting an application for correction of the purport of the claim as of April 28, 2010, the above court rendered a decision to transfer the case to a collegiate panel, and the first instance court to which the above case was transferred sent a three-time notice of the date of pleading to the defendant’s domicile, and the J, a defendant’s child, was served on August 17, 2010.

The delivery was made because the notice of change date sent by the first instance court to the defendant's domicile, the notice of the fourth date for pleading, the notice of the fifth date for pleading, and the sixth date for pleading, are not served by the absence of each closed door.

The defendant was served directly at his domicile on January 27, 201 with a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim as of January 21, 2011.

E. After that, the delivery was made on March 24, 201 because the notice of the date of pleadings, notice of the date of sentencing, and certified copy of the pleading protocol dated March 24, 201, sent by the first instance court to the Defendant’s domicile, were not served in each closed door absence.

The first instance court sent a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance to the defendant's domicile, but is not served as a closed door.