All appeals by the defendant and the motion for intervention by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor are dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The defendant, as to whether the appeal of this case was lawful, failed to observe the period of appeal because he was unable to directly receive the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance, since only the resident registration was attached to the delivery of the judgment of first instance, and the defendant filed an appeal of this case on March 23, 2020, by being aware of the judgment of the court of first instance which should be rendered on March 23, 2

On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with the Defendant to seek a loan stated in the purport of the claim. On March 4, 2011, the original copy of the payment order was served under Dhoe Dhoe, which is the Defendant’s resident registration domicile, and his mother received it as a live-in partner. After that, the Defendant filed a written objection against the payment order on March 29, 201, and the Defendant fulfilled the litigation procedure by submitting a written objection against the payment order on June 23, 201, and the writ of summons was sent and served on June 21, 201 due to the Defendant’s absence of the Defendant’s closure. The fact that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was served as the same place on July 8, 2011 and again received by F is apparent on the record.

According to this, the mother who did not live together with the original of the payment order received F.

Even if it is acknowledged that the defendant was aware of the fact that the lawsuit of this case was instituted by the filing of the payment order, and in such a case, it is impossible to serve the documents of lawsuit by public notice as a result of the payment order or the delivery of the complaint, unlike the case of serving the documents of lawsuit by public notice, the defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da23464 delivered on September 26, 1997, etc.). Therefore, even if the Defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is the peremptory term, because he was unable to deliver the judgment of the first instance to F, even though he was unable to observe the said period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's subsequent appeal is unlawful.

2. The intervenor's application for intervention by succession is legitimate.