1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with the Defendant and C to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim with the obligor on September 12, 2014. Accordingly, on the 19th of the same month, the Jungyang-si District Court issued the payment order (2014 tea 6080). The original copy of the above payment order was served as D on the 25th of the same month, Namyang-si, which was recorded as the Defendant’s domicile, and the person served on the status of delivery was stated as C, and on November 11, 2014, the Defendant inspected the records of the case of the above payment order application and then, on the 2th of the same month thereafter, recognized the fact that the Defendant filed an objection for a subsequent completion of the payment order on the 13th of the same month as the record of the instant case as well as by the statement under subparagraph B B.

A person who can receive a supplementary service under Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a person who lives together with the same household as the person to receive the service.

(see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma696, Aug. 27, 2013). While the Defendant appears to have lived with the Plaintiff, his spouse, the Plaintiff, and C at the above domicile prior to the above domicile, the Defendant was living together with the Defendant. Meanwhile, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is recognized that the Defendant was living in the same household as the Defendant at the time of receipt of the above original payment order, since the Plaintiff or C, who appears to have been served with the said original payment order on behalf of the Defendant, left the temple at around May 20, 2014, which was prior to the service of the original payment order as the above domicile, and was living in the same place as the Defendant.

Therefore, the above supplementary service is unlawful.

Therefore, since the defendant could not have complied with the time period for raising an objection against the above payment order due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, the defendant's perusal of the records of the above payment order case and the objection to the subsequent completion within 14 days from the date on which such cause ceases to exist is legitimate.

2. Claim of this case