1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2017 in the loan case No. 2013, Feb. 14, 2017

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's objection against the payment order is unlawful, since the defendant submitted a written objection against the payment order.

According to Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, if a person to receive service is not present at a place where service other than work place, a document shall be delivered to the person who is man of sense as a person living together, and a person living together with the same household as the person receiving service is lawful as a supplementary service; and a person living together with the same household as a person living together with the person receiving service; in fact, it shall be sufficient if it is in fact, and there is no need to belong to the same household on the resident registration, and there is no temporary relationship, not

(See Supreme Court Order 200Ma5732 Decided October 28, 200). On February 14, 2017, the court of first instance issued a payment order stating that “The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 15 million won and 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment.” At the defendant’s domicile, the defendant’s wife C was served with the original of the said payment order on February 16, 2017, and the defendant submitted the written objection against the payment order to the court of first instance on March 3, 2017, where two weeks elapsed thereafter, is obvious in records.

Therefore, the service of the original payment order by the court of first instance against C is lawful as a supplementary service against the defendant. Thus, the defendant served the original payment order on February 16, 2017, and the lawsuit of this case was terminated on March 2, 2017 when the above payment order became final and conclusive on March 2, 2017 when two weeks passed from the lawsuit of this case. Accordingly, the court of first instance is erroneous in its judgment based on pleading.

For this reason, the defendant found the original of the above payment order in a place where the original of the above payment order was delivered to someone else, and the defendant's original of the payment order was found late.