1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. The judgment of the first instance court of the Defendant’s assertion came into effect by serving the service by public notice. Since the Defendant failed to observe the appeal period because it was impossible to receive the notice of the date of pleading and the litigation documents such as the judgment after filing an objection to the payment order, the appeal for subsequent completion is lawful

B. 1) On September 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with the Jeonju District Court No. 2018Guj7633, and the said court served the Defendant on October 5, 2018 when issuing a payment order. As to this, the Defendant filed an objection on October 12, 2018. (2) The said court served the Defendant a written notice setting the first and second legal date for pleading, the second legal date for pleading, and the date for sentencing, and served the notice on the date to the Defendant. (3) The said court sent the notice to the Defendant on the first and second legal date for pleading, and was not served due

3) On December 19, 2018, the above court served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant. The service was not made due to the absence of closure, and the service took effect on January 12, 2019 by means of service by public notice. 4) The Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on June 21, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Clear Facts and the purport of the whole pleading

C. The “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. Thus, in cases where the service of documents related to a lawsuit during the process of the lawsuit was impossible and the service of documents related to the lawsuit was inevitable by public notice as a result, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the beginning. Thus, if the party did not know the progress of the lawsuit before the court, it cannot be said that there was no negligence. Further, whether the party was present at the date of pleading and present at the date of pleading, and the following is the date of pleading.