1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

We examine the legality of the appeal mentioned above in the proposal.

1. On July 14, 2015, when the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s address as Seoul Seocho-gu N apartment and 112 Dong 1502, which is the Defendant’s resident registration address. The first instance court served the Defendant’s application for the payment order as a duplicate of the written complaint, as the submission order was issued prior to the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order (hereinafter “duplicate of the written complaint”). However, it was impossible to serve the Defendant as “the director’s unknown”.

On September 18, 2015, according to the order to correct the address of the first instance court on September 14, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted to the first instance court the amendment amended the Defendant’s place of service into Seoul Seocho-guO and five floors, which are the location in the corporate register of B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) whose representative director is the Defendant’s place of service, to the Seoul High Court.

According to the above amendment, the first instance court served a duplicate of the complaint of this case and a notice of the sentencing date (non-litigation) as the location of the non-party company, and P and Q received each of the above litigation documents.

On November 24, 2015, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on November 24, 2015, and served the authentic copy as the location of the non-party company, and received it by the non-party company's secretary R on November 30, 2015.

On October 12, 2016, after the expiration of the appeal period, the Defendant submitted to the first instance court a written appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Subsequent completion of procedural acts under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act can only be done when the parties could not comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them, and "reasons not attributable to them" here means the case where the parties could not comply with the period even though they had due care to do the procedural acts, even though they had not been able to do so.