1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. Article 171-2(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that when a party, his legal representative, or his legal representative changes the place of service without delay, the purport thereof shall be reported to the court. Paragraph (2) provides that service of documents to a person who has failed to make a report under paragraph (1) may be made by registered mail at the place where service is previously made only when the place where service is to be made cannot be known, and "if the place to serve a delivery is unknown" as mentioned above, it is reasonable to say that the service by registered mail may be made only when the other party issues an order to correct his address or ex officio to investigate his resident registration card, etc., but it is not necessary to order the other party to correct his address, but at least if the place to serve

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da23464 delivered on September 26, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2001Da31592 delivered on August 24, 2001, etc.) B.

Judgment

In light of the relevant legal principles, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant on October 26, 2016, the Daegu District Court Doldong District Court 2016Guldong District Court 20155, and the Defendant’s registration certificate attached to the above payment order was indicated as “Seoul Metropolitan City Doldong D building, 103 Dong 302,” and the Defendant’s representative director C’s address was indicated as “Seoul Doldong D building, 103 Dong 302,” and the above court served the original copy of the above payment order on November 24, 2016 as the Defendant’s principal office, and accordingly, the Defendant filed a written objection with the above court on the same day. Accordingly, the above payment order was executed as the Defendant’s principal office on January 5, 2017, and ③ the court of first instance was served as the Defendant’s principal office on the Defendant’s domicile on January 1, 2017, but was not known as the date for pleading.