1. All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason why the party could not observe the relevant period even though the party had exercised a general duty to act in the course of litigation. In a case where the documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a usual way during the course of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served in a way of service by public notice. As such, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit even if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is attributable to a reason for which the party cannot be held responsible.

Furthermore, the circumstance that there was no negligence in failing to observe the appeal period due to the failure to know the declaration and service of the judgment should be proved by the parties who want to supplement the appeal later.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10394 Decided March 28, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10394, Mar. 28, 2013). In addition, in a case where an obligor raises a lawful objection against a payment order, a lawsuit is deemed to have been instituted regarding the value of the purpose of a claim for which an objection was raised at the time of filing a request for a payment order (see, e.g., Article 472(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and in view of the court’s practice where the obligor served with the obligor when filing a request for a payment order, there is no reason to

In the records of this case, ① the representative F at the time of the defendant was directly served on January 14, 2015, Geumcheon-gu Seoul, the location of the principal office, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, 12th 1207, the original copy of the payment order and the statement of demanding procedure guidance from this court, ② The defendant raised an objection on January 23, 2015.