Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

A. The defendant's gist of the defendant's assertion was that the plaintiff was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to the plaintiff.

Even if there is no reason to do so, the plaintiff must supplement the litigation within two weeks from the date of exhaustion. The plaintiff filed an appeal for subsequent completion after being served with the main text of the judgment of the first instance court by public notice after being served with the notice, which was later served after the second week from the date of receiving the main text of the judgment of the second instance. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal for subsequent completion is correct.

B. Fact 1) The Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order on April 3, 2017, and the Defendant submitted an objection and implemented it as a lawsuit.

2) On May 21, 2018, the Plaintiff received a notice of the first instance trial date in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (hereinafter “First instance trial”) on May 21, 2018.

3) On June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff appeared on the first hearing date, and did not appear on the second hearing date notified ( July 6, 2018).

4) On August 17, 2018, the Plaintiff appeared on the third hearing date (the first instance court served on June 21, 2018 the Plaintiff’s third hearing date notice following the Plaintiff’s correction of his/her address, but served on June 21, 2018 the date of the third hearing in Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul, upon the Plaintiff’s correction of his/her address, the service was sent upon the addressee’s uncertainty) and the date ( August 31, 2018).

5) On August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff did not appear on the date of adjudication, and the first instance court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the same day.

6) The first instance court served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the Plaintiff’s domicile (Seoul Guro-gu Seoul), and became impossible to serve the original copy of the judgment on September 14, 2018 due to the Plaintiff’s absence of closure.

Accordingly, on September 20, 2018, the first instance court served the Plaintiff with the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on September 20, 2018, and on October 5, 2018, the service to the Plaintiff became effective.

7) On March 10, 2020, the Plaintiff received an authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance on March 10, 2020, and submitted a petition of final appeal to the first instance court on May 15, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.