1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. 1) On June 12, 2001, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On June 26, 2001, the first instance court sent a certified copy of the decision on performance recommendation to the Defendant on June 26, 2001, but served both copies, etc. of the complaint on November 1, 2001, by means of public notice. 2) On November 19, 2001, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on November 19, 2001. On December 11, 2001, the original copy of the first instance judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice.

3) Meanwhile, on August 11, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a new lawsuit against the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the claim of the judgment of the first instance (Seoul Central District Court 201Da200294), and the first instance court that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on March 16, 2012 (hereinafter “instant subsequent suit”).

(4) On July 25, 2018, the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal against the instant subsequent suit (Seoul Central District Court 2018Na51197) on the following grounds: (a) on August 30, 2018, the instant subsequent suit filed a written application for inspection and duplication, summary dispute settlement, and statement of grounds of appeal; and (b) the written application for the instant subsequent suit is accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the first instance and a written evidence for confirmation of delivery.

5) On November 1, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a written reply at the appellate court of the instant subsequent suit. The said written reply states that “the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on June 12, 2001, and sentenced to the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on December 27, 2001, and the original judgment was served by public notice, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit again for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the claim of the first instance judgment, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit again for the interruption of extinctive prescription against the claim of the instant judgment.” The output of the instant case’s “B case search” is attached as evidence, and the said written reply was served on the Defendant on November 5, 2018, and the Defendant was served on the Defendant on November 28, 2018.).