1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case

(a)The following facts in fact of recognition are apparent or obvious to this court by record:

1) On December 21, 2015, the Defendant’s work partner B received the original copy of the payment order and the statement of demand procedure guidance from the Suwon District Court of Suwon District Court of Seoul, Nam-gu, Incheon, the Defendant’s office domicile. 2) On December 28, 2015, the Defendant submitted a written answer to the competent court on December 28, 2015, and the written answer to the same court on January 13, 2016. The above payment order case was implemented as the lawsuit No. 2016Na3311 for Suwon District Court of Suwon-gu, Incheon, the Defendant’s office domicile.

3) On March 9, 2016, the court of first instance served a notice on the date for pleading on March 15, 2016 on the Defendant, who was served the notice on the date for pleading, but did not serve the notice on the date for pleading due to the unknown whereabouts of the director. On March 29, 2016, the court served the notice on the said address on March 15, 2016, but sent the notice on the date for pronouncement on April 6, 2016. On April 27, 2016, the original copy of the judgment was served on the said address by means of service on May 3, 2016, but was not served due to the unknown whereabouts of the director, and thus served on May 18, 2016.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the period even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the litigation, and the circumstance that the party was not negligent in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know the declaration and delivery of the judgment, should be asserted by the party who intends to supplement the appeal later.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da103394, Mar. 28, 2013). In light of the foregoing recognition, the Defendant issued a payment order.