The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant received the instant payment order from the first instance court, and thus, the judgment of the first instance served the Defendant by means of public notice.

The defendant was obligated to confirm the progress of the case in this case.

As such, the defendant's failure to file an appeal within the appeal period cannot be deemed due to any cause not attributable to him. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal is an incidental law.

B. (1) On February 8, 2017, the Defendant was served with the written application for the instant payment order in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D, the domicile of which was the domicile.

(2) The first instance court served a notice of the date of pleading on the Defendant’s domicile, and was unable to serve the notice due to the absence of closure on August 11, 2017.

On August 21, 2017, the court of first instance sent a notice of the date of pleading to the defendant.

(3) On August 23, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the absence of the Defendant on the date of the first pleading.

(4) The court of first instance served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the Defendant’s domicile, and was unable to serve on September 22, 2017 due to the absence of a closed text.

Accordingly, on October 10, 2017, the court of first instance served a certified copy of the judgment of first instance on the defendant by means of serving public notice on the defendant on October 10, 2017, and on October 26, 2017, the service to the defendant became effective.

(5) On May 14, 2020, the Defendant applied for perusal and duplication of the instant case, and came to know of the existence of the judgment of the first instance, and submitted a petition of appeal to the court of first instance on May 20, 2020.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings]

C. (1) Determination is based on the grounds that the parties could not comply with the relevant legal principles despite the parties’ attention to conduct procedural acts, as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.