1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Service shall be extended at the domicile, residence, business office or office of the served person.

(Article 183(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The service of documents may, in principle, be made by delivery to the person to receive the service, or, if the service institution fails to retain the person to receive the service at the aforementioned place, by means of a supplementary service of documents to his/her clerk, employee, or cohabitant, who is man of sense of judgment.

(1) Article 186(1) of the same Act provides that “If a supplementary service is made, the service shall take effect at the time of delivery of the litigation document by a clerk, employee, cohabitant, etc., and whether the person to receive the document was finally received by the person to receive the document, or the time of delivery does not have any relation to the validity of the service (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Nu405, Jun. 26, 1984; 84Nu405, Jan. 14, 2008; 2007Ma94, Jan. 14, 2008; 201Da85208, Feb. 23, 2012; 2011Da85208, Feb. 23, 2012)” under Article 186(1) of the Civil Procedure Act does not necessarily require an employment relationship with the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1540, Jan. 30, 2009). Meanwhile, in the case of an appeal for the subsequent completion, the reason for the subsequent completion must be proved unless the existence of the reason for the subsequent completion is either known to the public or obvious facts to the court. Thus, the person filing an appeal for the subsequent completion must prove and prove that he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period for the appeal due to any cause not attributable to himself/herself, and that he/she filed an appeal for neglect within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da21222, Jan. 30, 2001). With respect to the legality of the appeal of this case, the original copy of the payment order and the Plaintiff’s preparatory documents on October 16, 2018 were served in the first instance court, which are the location of the Defendant’s principal office, as Domen, as Domensan-gu, Jeonju-si, where the Defendant’s principal office is located, and the general affairs E and workplace employees F receive them.