1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim that was reduced in the trial is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid on behalf of the Defendant the purchase price of the materials, etc. purchased while lending the Plaintiff’s name and construction license, and the value-added tax to be borne by the Defendant, and applied for payment order against the Defendant on March 30, 2012.

This Court issued a payment order in accordance with the above motion, but the original of the payment order was not served on the defendant due to the absence of a closed text.

(2) On May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff received an order to rectify the Defendant’s address from this court to correct the Defendant’s address, and filed an application for filing a lawsuit.

Accordingly, the above case of the above payment order was implemented as a litigation procedure (the Suwon District Court 2012da47483, the first instance court of this case).

(3) The court of the first instance held that the service of the copy, etc. of the instant complaint (payment order) was conducted on the Defendant’s domicile, but did not eventually serve as a director’s unknown.

(4) Accordingly, the court of first instance served the Defendant with litigation documents, such as the duplicate of the instant complaint and the notice of date for pleading, by public notice, and proceeded with pleadings. On November 16, 2012, the court rendered a judgment of the first instance that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, and served the original judgment by public notice. The judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive in the form of December 5, 2012.

(5) Subsequent to June 21, 2019, the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables seizure based on the authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance with executory power on June 21, 2019 was executed at the Defendant’s residence (the Defendant did not participate in the execution thereof) (the Defendant did not participate in the execution thereof). The Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order on the Defendant’s construction price claim against D based on the original copy of the judgment as Incheon District Court 2019TT12700, and received the seizure and collection order on June 28, 2019.

(6) Around that time, the Defendant became aware of the existence of the judgment of the first instance on July 8, 2019.