1. The instant lawsuit pertains to a loan order issued on November 25, 2013 in this Court 2013 tea7151.

A debtor may file an objection within two weeks from the date of being served with a payment order. Since the period for raising an objection against the above two weeks is a peremptory period, if the debtor intends to file an objection against the payment order, it shall be deemed that the debtor was unable to observe the period for raising an objection, which is the peremptory period, due to any cause

(Civil Procedure Act (Articles 470(1) and (2) and 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The order for payment stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article is served on December 2, 2013 by means of delivery to Da, 113 Dong 205, and Do 113 Dong 205. However, the fact that the defendant raised an objection against the above order for payment on June 20, 2014, which is the period for filing the objection, is apparent.

The defendant asserted that the defendant was living in Gangnam-gu Seoul E and the third floor 303, not the above address at the time of the service of the above payment order, and that service for C other than the defendant was not a lawful service, and that the defendant was aware of the fact that the above payment order was served by receiving the last debt collection order.

According to the evidence No. 7, the fact that the defendant transferred around November 5, 2013 to Gangnam-gu Seoul E and the third floor 303 is recognized.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 9-1 of evidence Nos. 9, testimony of witness F and the purport of the whole pleadings, following the above payment order's Da, 113 and 205 are the domicile of C, and C who was served with the above payment order's domicile at the above domicile was the mother of the defendant, the loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) prepared on September 23, 2013 entered the defendant's domicile as the above domicile and was not the plaintiff, and as such, the defendant was not the plaintiff, and the defendant can be acknowledged that he was admitted to the plaintiff's office in Jeonju-si, with C around December 21, 2013 and joined the guidance operated by the plaintiff. According to the above facts, according to the above recognition, the defendant used his mother's domicile as the residence.