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. The following facts are significant in this Court:

On April 5, 2018, the first instance court rendered a judgment against the Defendant to pay KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay, and the Defendant appealed thereto, and filed a petition of appeal against the first instance court on April 23, 2018, but did not pay the stamp and service charge.

B. On May 9, 2018, the first instance court ordered the Defendant to pay KRW 982,500, and KRW 108,000, respectively, within seven days from the date on which the order was served. The order of correction was served on the Defendant on May 14, 2018.

C. On April 23, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for legal aid concerning the whole litigation costs of this case with the Suwon District Court 2018Ka-gu124, but was dismissed on April 25, 2018, and the appeal (U.S. District Court 2018Ra508) against the above dismissal decision was dismissed on September 14, 2018, and the reappeal was dismissed, but the reappeal was dismissed.

On December 6, 2018, this Court issued an order of correction ordering the Defendant to pay KRW 982,500, a stamp of appeal, to the Defendant, and the said order of correction was served on the same day.

E. On December 10, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for legal aid concerning the stamp, attorney’s fees, and service fees with the Suwon District Court (2018Ka-gu343), but was dismissed on December 12, 2018.

F. The defendant did not pay the petition of appeal even before the date of the closing of the argument in this case after receiving a service of the order of correction of the above Paragraph (d).

2. We examine ex officio the lawfulness of the instant appeal.

In the petition of appeal, revenue stamps under the provisions of law should be attached (Articles 399(1) and 402(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The defendant did not attach revenue stamps to the petition of appeal, and even if he received an order to correct the revenue stamps from this court, he did not correct it by the date of the closing of argument in this case. Thus, the defendant's appeal is unlawful, and the defects cannot be corrected.