1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

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

1) The court of first instance served a copy of the application for payment order, the date for pleading, etc. to Kim Jong-si, the Defendant’s domicile on the Defendant’s resident registration, but became unable to serve on the Defendant on the ground that there was no resident and residence space in the site. 2) Accordingly, the court of first instance served the Defendant with a notice of the complaint, the date for pleading, etc. by service, and served the Defendant with a copy of the complaint, the date for pleading, etc. on July 24, 2008, and served the original copy of the judgment by service, and the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive on July 16, 2008.

3) For the interruption of extinctive prescription against the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2018Hu1073222, and the Defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment on June 20, 2018, in the above case of the acquisition amount by transfer in the above court No. 2018 A. 2004947, the Defendant had raised an objection against the above payment order, and the judgment of the court of first instance was proceeded by service by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was also served by service by public notice. 4) The Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of the judgment on December 26, 2018.

B. 1) The Defendant asserts that service by public notice by public notice by public notice by public notice by the court of first instance is unlawful. However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, service by public notice by public notice by the court of first instance on the Defendant’s resident registration is lawful, since service by public notice by public notice by the court of first instance is deemed lawful because the Defendant’s domicile, etc. is unknown on the grounds that service by public notice by public notice by public notice by the court of first instance is not possible on the Defendant’s resident registration. 2) The Defendant’s assertion is without merit. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act as to whether service by public notice by public notice