The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 1, 201" in paragraph (1).

1. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

A. The records of this case reveal the following facts: ① the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on August 22, 2018; ② the Defendant’s live partner C, which is the Defendant’s domicile on September 6, 2018, received the original copy of the instant payment order, the notice of demand procedure and the notice of electronic lawsuit (Seoul District Court Decision 2227, Sept. 10, 2018; ③ the Defendant filed an objection against the foregoing payment order and the demand procedure was carried out as the instant lawsuit; ④ the first instance court sent the Defendant the notice of the date of pleading to the Defendant on May 23, 2019, but sent the original copy to the Defendant on June 10, 2019, which is the Defendant’s address on September 6, 2018, and then sent the original copy to the Defendant on June 20, 2019, which is not deemed to have been served as the Defendant’s absence of written notification; ⑤ the judgment of the lower court on September 26, 2019, 2019

B. (1) According to Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, where a party was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may subsequently supplement the procedural acts within two weeks from the date of his/her failure to satisfy the said cause. The term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” under the said Article refers to the grounds for not being able to comply with the said period, notwithstanding the party’s attention to conduct the procedural acts, even though he/she had exercised his/her duty to do so, if the documents of the lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of the lawsuit and served by means of public disclosure, the copy of the first complaint.