2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

A. 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 observe the period even though the party fulfilled generally required care for conducting litigation. In a case where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the first delivery of the copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. As such, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is due to any reason for which it cannot be held responsible.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98423 Decided April 25, 2013, etc.). Moreover, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that the lawsuit was brought, the Defendant neglected it.

If service by public notice has not been made to the reported address or by public notice, even though the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was not known to the defendant, the defendant is negligent in finding such fact.

As such, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful.

(B) Supreme Court Order 70Ma312 Decided May 29, 1970, Supreme Court Order 93Ma1851 Decided February 25, 1994, Supreme Court Order 2004Da41484, 41491 Decided April 29, 2005, etc.

Judgment

1) The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendants for a payment order under the Daegu District Court and the Daegu District Court and the racing support 2015j.11. On January 16, 2015, the said payment order’s original copy was “Ulsan-gu G (hereinafter “the first domicile of the Defendants”)’ address.”

The defendants submitted a written objection to the above court on January 21, 2015. Accordingly, the above payment order case was implemented as litigation No. 2015da710 for Daegu District Court racing support, and ② the defendants submitted the written objection to the above court on February 27, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 1317, Feb. 27, 2015>