1. On August 29, 2016, the instant lawsuit is an order for payment, such as the price of goods, etc., issued by the Suwon District Court, Osan District Court, 2016 tea 2155.

On August 29, 2016, the Defendant’s objection to the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) such as the price for goods, etc. (hereinafter “instant payment order”) from the Suwon District Court, the Suwon District Court, the Seoul District Court, 2016, 2016, is deemed lawful.

The record reveals that the defendant received the original copy of the instant payment order on September 1, 2016, directly from the "T" reported by the plaintiff as the service place of the payment order.

Since the service of the instant payment order against the Defendant is lawful on the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the period of objection against the Defendant’s above payment order is two weeks from the date of service, and that it is up to September 19, 2016 until September 24, 2016.

Nevertheless, on October 25, 2016, the Defendant filed an objection against the instant payment order on which the period for filing the objection far expired, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant could not observe the period of filing the objection, which is a peremptory term, due to the reasons for recognizing the objection against the instant payment order on the record, i.e., reasons for not being responsible.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit had already been concluded on September 19, 2016 after the instant payment order became final and conclusive.

The defendant's objection as of October 25, 2016 against it is illegal because it was raised without a legitimate reason to complete the appeal period, and it is illegal to dismiss it.