1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

We examine the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case.

The following facts are clear in records:

On December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff’s application for the instant payment order was served on the Defendant’s domicile as “Yinwon-si Masan-si 204 Dong 1003, Changwon-si 2003, and the Defendant received it.”

On December 20, 2013, the defendant raised an objection.

Accordingly, the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap1718 applied for the payment order of this case.

On March 27, 2014, the first instance court notified the Defendant of the date for pleading of the first instance court, with the date for pleading of the first instance as of March 27, 2014. The notice of the date for pleading was served on the Defendant’s domicile and received it on March 4, 2014.

On the date of first pleading, the Defendant was not present at the court of first instance, and the first instance court concluded the pleading on the said date of pleading, and notified the Defendant of the sentencing date on April 17, 2014. The notice of sentencing date was served on the Defendant’s domicile, and the Defendant received it on March 31, 2014.

On April 17, 2014, the first instance court sentenced the judgment at the sentencing date.

On April 23, 2014, the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant’s domicile and the relation with the Defendant was received by “C”, which stated that the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant’s domicile.

The defendant submitted a petition of appeal to the first instance court on July 8, 2014.

C being served with the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance on the summary of the defendant's assertion is merely a lessee.

C After receiving the original copy of the above judgment, C did not immediately transfer it to the Defendant at the end of June 2014.

Accordingly, the defendant filed a copy of the records of this case on June 27, 2014 and received a written judgment on June 30, 2014.

As such, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and thus, the subsequent appeal of this case is filed.

Judgment

A subsequent completion of procedural acts as stipulated in Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be made by the party concerned who is not responsible for it.