1. The defendant's petition for retrial is dismissed;

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Determination of the original judgment

A. The Plaintiff filed a loan claim lawsuit against the Defendant (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2015Gahap5475). The duplicate of the complaint in the instant case was not served on the Defendant as “a closed door absence.”

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for special delivery (e.g., at night) on the ground that the last address of the Defendant’s resident registration abstract is the same as that of the previous address, who was ordered to correct the address by the court.

Therefore, although the court attempted to serve the execution officer by the method of service, the court did not serve the notice due to the addressee's unknown.

C. On February 22, 2016, the court ordered the Defendant to serve by public notice, such as a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and thereafter served both the notice of the date of pleading and the notice of the adjudication date by public notice, and subsequently declared a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 28, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Decision on Review") The above decision was finalized on May 18, 2016.

The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial on February 27, 2017. However, the Seoul High Court (2017Na9482) (hereinafter “Seoul Eastern District Court”) rejected the Defendant’s appeal on the ground that “The Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial was served to the Defendant by means of service at least around November 11, 2016, or around November 23, 2016, when the Defendant inspected the auction records of Seoul East East District Court C (Seoul East District Court C).” However, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial was served to the Defendant by means of service. The instant appeal filed only after the lapse of two weeks thereafter

E. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed, but was ordered to dismiss the petition of appeal on October 30, 2017 on the ground that the Defendant failed to comply with the order to correct the stamp.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 15, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's assertion has a credit for the loan that was fully repaid even though the loan was fully repaid.