beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The Defendant’s KRW 19,968,126 among the Plaintiff and KRW 19,384,299 among the Plaintiff, January 26, 2014.
Reasons
1. Whether a formal objection against the payment order is lawful;
A. Article 470(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "where an obligor has filed an objection within two weeks from the date on which he/she received a service of the payment order, the payment order shall lose its effect within the scope thereof, and Article 173(1) provides that "if the party concerned is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts conducted within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist, and where the obligor cannot file an objection within two weeks from the date on which the service of the payment order was made due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may file
In addition, the term "reasons for which a party cannot be held responsible" refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the period even though the party has paid attention to conduct the litigation in general.
B. In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order on April 9, 2014, and the original copy of the payment order was served on April 16, 2014, and the Defendant received the payment order. The Defendant became aware that the original copy of the instant payment order was served on or around May 12, 2014, and filed an objection subsequent to the same date. The Defendant filed an objection subsequent to the said date. The Defendant filed an objection on December 19, 2014 at this court on December 19, 2014 after the filing of the objection as above. The fact that the Defendant corrected the address with the “Seoul Seogu 106 Dong 1209, Daegu Da 1209” is apparent or obvious in the record.
In light of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant alleged that the original copy of the instant payment order was not delivered by C, and the Defendant received the original copy of the payment order from “Tgu Seo-gu B, Daegu-gu,” but the Defendant received the original copy of the payment order from “Tgu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 106 Dong1209” after the subsequent completion of the objection.