beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case
(a)The following facts of recognition are apparent or obvious to this Court in the records:
1) On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order as Seoul Central District Court 2018 tea 982921, and on March 5, 2018, the original copy of the payment order was served on the Defendant’s cohabitant. On March 13, 2018, the Defendant filed a written objection against the payment order and submitted it to the Defendant for legal proceedings as Seoul Central District Court 2018Da5061822, which was the first instance court of this case. 2) On May 18, 2018, the court of first instance designated the Defendant as the date for first pleading and served the Defendant a notice of the date for pleading on May 18, 2018, and sent it to the Defendant on April 9, 2018.
3) Thereafter, the court of first instance closed the pleadings on May 18, 2018, and designated June 22, 2018 as the sentencing date. On May 23, 2018, the court served a notice of the sentencing date to the Defendant and served the notice to the Defendant on May 23, 2018, and sent the notice to the Defendant on May 28, 2018. (4) The court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on June 22, 2018, and served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the Defendant’s domicile on which the said payment order was served, but did not serve the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the Defendant’s domicile, and thus the service of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on July 4, 2018 became effective on July 19, 2018.
5) On December 31, 2018, the Defendant submitted a written appeal for the subsequent completion of the lawsuit in this case. (B) The “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the time limit, despite the party’s care to do the procedural acts. In a case where the document of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and is served by public notice, it is different from the case where the first copy of the written appeal was served by public notice from the date of service of the copy of the written complaint.