용역비
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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
(a) Facts below the basis are clear of records;
1) On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order claiming design cost of KRW 214,900,000 and delay damages against the Defendant as the Head Office of Changwon District Court Head Office 2015Ra516. The payment order was stated in the Defendant’s main office, and the copy of the corporate register attached to the written application for payment order was indicated in the “Seoul Gangdong-gu F Building 206” at the representative director’s address. (ii) The above court issued a payment order on June 16, 2015, and served the original payment order and the written guidance for demand procedure at the location of the Defendant’s main office.
On June 22, 2015, G, a defendant's employee, received the original of the above payment order and the notice of demanding procedure. The defendant raised an objection against the payment order on June 30, 2015.
3) In the proceedings of the first instance court, which had been implemented as a result of an objection against the above payment order, the court of first instance served the recommendation for correction on July 24, 2015 on the Defendant’s head office, but was not served on July 29, 2015 due to the Defendant’s unknown whereabouts. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant’s recommendation for correction was served on the Defendant’s representative director’s domicile, but was not served on the addressee’s unknown date on August 4, 2015. The court of first instance served the Defendant’s certificate as the Defendant’s representative director’s domicile on August 4, 2015, but was not served on the date for pleading on August 10, 2015. The court of first instance sent the notice for correction recommendation, the certificate of date for pleading, and the date for pleading on August 19, 2015 to the Defendant’s head office, but did not serve on the director’s unknown date for pleading by opening the date for pleading.
On September 11, 2015, the court of first instance served a notice of the sentencing date on the location of the defendant's head office, but on September 15, 2015, the court sent the notice of the sentencing date on September 18, 2015, which was not served due to the director's unknown whereabouts.
5 The court of the first instance shall be the court of the first instance on January 2015.