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 the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. According to the records of this case, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request against the Defendant for a payment order claiming the return of unjust enrichment under this Court 2014 tea7599, and the said court issued the payment order against the Defendant on January 23, 2015 (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

The Defendant issued the instant payment order. On January 27, 2015, the Defendant served the original copy of the instant payment order, and on February 5, 2015, filed an objection against the instant payment order with the said court (the Defendant’s domicile entered in the instant payment order and the Defendant’s domicile entered in the said written objection were all “Songyang-gu, Goyang-gu C”.

(2) According to the Defendant’s objection, on May 11, 2015, the court of first instance sent the first written notice to the Defendant on May 201, 2015, and sent the notice to the Defendant on May 20, 2015 as the recipient was not known. On June 9, 2015, the Defendant sent the notice to the Defendant on June 19, 2015, but was not sent for the same reason. On July 14, 2015, the Defendant sent the notice to the Defendant on June 19, 2015, but was not sent for the same reason.

3) On August 18, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim, and sent the original copy of the judgment of the first instance to the Defendant, but was not served in the addressee’s unknown address, and served the original copy of the judgment by public notice pursuant to the order by public notice on September 2, 2015. On September 17, 2015, the service of the original judgment became effective. 4) The Defendant filed a subsequent appeal on July 4, 2016, clearly after the lapse of 14 days from the date of service of the original judgment of the first instance court.

B. The “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the party’s exercise of general duty to conduct litigation.