1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking objection against the Defendant’s Plaintiff by asserting that compulsory execution based on the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) dated January 12, 2018 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). We examine ex officio whether the objection suit satisfies the litigation requirements.

A lawsuit of demurrer is subject to valid title of execution, inasmuch as a lawsuit of demurrer is sought to exclude executory power by asserting the substantive reasons with respect to a claim indicated in the title of execution, such as a final judgment rendered by the debtor.

An order for payment shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment when no objection is raised, an objection is withdrawn, or a decision of dismissal becomes final and conclusive (Article 474 of the Civil Procedure Act), and since an order for payment in a final and conclusive state cannot become an effective executive title, a lawsuit of objection against a claim seeking the exclusion of executive force

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da70012, Nov. 15, 2012). If the service of the original copy of the judgment is not effective, the appeal period, which is a peremptory term, cannot be lawful. Therefore, the subsequent completion of the litigation cannot be said to be a problem. Parties may file an appeal at any time, and the Defendant, who was not legally served, was aware of the fact of the sentence of a judgment.

Even if there is no service of judgment against the defendant, the appeal period does not run (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Da1015, Jul. 24, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 71Da771, Jun. 22, 1971; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1182, Nov. 11, 1980). In light of the above legal principles, the health unit as to the instant case, and the instant payment order was delivered D in the “Ssan-si,” which was not the Plaintiff’s domicile on February 9, 2018, and the Plaintiff was not the Plaintiff’s residence or place of work, and the said D is also the Plaintiff’s person who is not the Plaintiff’s cohabitant, etc., and such fact is recognized.