1. The appeal of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Whether the appeal of this case is lawful

A. According to the records of this case (the present status of service by case), the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Defendant (Cheongju District Court 2014Guj3576), and the said court served the original copy of the payment order to “Yong-gun C,” which is the Defendant’s domicile indicated in the application for the payment order, but was not served as a closed door door. Accordingly, the Plaintiff corrected the address as “Da, 114 Dong 210, which is the Defendant’s representative domicile,” and the said court served the original copy of the payment order to the address where the correction was made, but was not served as the addressee’s unknown person. The Plaintiff re-issued the Defendant’s address to “Songju-si,” but filed an application for a lawsuit on December 17, 2014, where the original copy of the payment order was not served to “Song-si,” and the first instance court directly received the Defendant’s report from the Defendant’s head office “Song-si, 2015.”

3) On March 11, 2015, the first instance court sentenced a judgment without holding any pleadings, but the original of the judgment was not served on the defendant, and service of the judgment became effective on April 9, 2015. The defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the first instance court on February 29, 2016, which was 14 days after the time when service became effective. (b) The original of the judgment was served by the method of service by public notice by the order of the presiding judge, so long as the original of the judgment was served on the defendant by the method of service by public notice, the requirements are not satisfied.

Even if the service is valid, the above judgment becomes formally final and conclusive, and the propriety of subsequent appeal against the above judgment is determined separately by whether the appeal period is due to a cause not attributable to the appellant.