1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "if a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist." In this context, "reasons for which the party cannot be held liable" means the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though he/she has performed the duty of due care to conduct procedural acts, even though he/she had performed the duty

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195 Decided November 10, 2005, etc.). B.

In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order against the Defendant on January 26, 2016 with this Court No. 2016Da856, but the said court rendered a decision to refer the original of the payment order sent to the Defendant’s domicile on the Defendant’s resident registration to litigation procedures when the original of the payment order was unable to be served, and accordingly, the said court rendered a decision to refer the order to litigation procedures. In a lawsuit (this court 2016Gaso2999), the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on June 22, 2016, by serving the Defendant a notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendant by public notice, and the Defendant applied for perusal and duplication of records on March 13, 2017, thereby holding the judgment of the first instance court of this case.