1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of the case is unlawful, and thus, I first examine it.

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason why the party could not observe the relevant period even though the party had exercised a general duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a usual way during the course of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a way of service by public notice. As such, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit even if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is attributable to a reason for which the party cannot be held responsible.

Furthermore, the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the appeal period due to the failure to know the declaration and service of the judgment should be proved by the parties who want to supplement the appeal later.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10394 Decided March 28, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10394, Mar. 28, 2013). In addition, in a case where an obligor raises a lawful objection against a payment order, a lawsuit is deemed to have been instituted regarding the value of the purpose of a claim for which an objection was raised at the time of filing a request for a payment order (see, e.g., Article 472(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and in view of the court’s business practice where the obligor serves with the original copy of the payment order when filing a request for a payment order

According to the records of this case, the defendant is the domicile of the original copy of the payment order, the procedure guide for demand and the electronic litigation guide of this court on July 28, 2016.