beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,948,662 as well as its full payment from February 6, 2005.
Reasons
1. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the judgment of the first instance
A. 1) In applying for a payment order against the Defendant, the Plaintiff stated the Defendant’s address as “B, 101, U.S. Suwon-gu, U.S., U.S., B, 101” in the application form. (2) After receiving the original copy of the payment order, the Defendant filed an objection on March 16, 2015 and stated the Defendant’s address as “B, C building 101, U.S., U.S., U.S., and C building 301.”
3) On May 19, 2015, the court of first instance served an original copy of the judgment by means of service by public notice on June 16, 2015 and served the original copy of the judgment on July 1, 2015, where the document was served on the date for pleading, preparation document, etc. as “B, U.S., U.S., U., and U.S.,” and the document was served to the said person who was not served due to uncertainty of address.
5) On October 26, 2015, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of first instance on October 26, 2015.
B. The court of first instance held that the defendant's address did not take appropriate measures to ensure that the service was not possible due to the omission of the number of addresses and the failure to serve the address due to the impossibility of identifying the address among the defendant's address, and that the service was made without being taken, and that the service was not made on the "Yansan-si B and C building 301" reported to the place of service by the defendant, and thus, the notice of the date of pleading following the
Therefore, since the court of first instance did not deliver a writ of summons to the defendant properly, and proceeded with the date for pleading while the defendant did not appear in court, the court cannot proceed with legitimate pleadings.
In addition, it can not be said that the notification of designation has been effective to the defendant as long as the pleading is closed at the date of pleading that is unlawful and the date of pronouncement has been designated and notified.