The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

A. The following facts are apparent in the course of the instant case.

1) The Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 17 million against the Defendant at this court No. 2018 tea 4975, and the Defendant received the original copy of the payment order on April 12, 2019, and filed an objection and submitted it to the instant legal proceedings.

On September 10, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted a written response, and the Defendant received a direct service at his/her domicile, and submitted a written response on September 30, 2019.

On October 17, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted a document prepared by the Plaintiff, and was not served on the Defendant on the ground that the director was unknown; thereafter, the document prepared; the notice of the date of pleading; the document prepared by the Plaintiff on December 24, 2019; the document prepared by the Plaintiff on December 24, 2019; and the second written notice of the date of pleading and the date of declaration of the judgment were sent.

The first instance court sentenced the judgment on February 28, 2020 and served the defendant on March 25, 2020 as the text of the judgment was not served by the director's uncertainty.

2) On the other hand, the Defendant was detained in the detention center in Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2019 Godan2866 decided on February 20, 2020 and was sentenced to imprisonment for six months on September 18, 2019 and was detained in the court on February 20, 2020.

After that, the defendant was released by the ruling of permission on bail on April 10, 2020, which was pending in the appellate trial of the above criminal trial.

On April 24, 2020, the defendant submitted a revised petition of appeal.

B. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s first instance court did not serve the Defendant’s main text of the judgment on the grounds that it had to serve the Defendant again by means of supplementary service, etc., and immediately served the notice without taking any particular measure. As such, it did not satisfy the requirements for public notice delivery, and thus, is incompetuent with the law.

2) The defendant is legally bound on February 20, 2020, when the trial of the first instance was in progress, and Corrona.