beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal
A. On March 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order of KRW 7,011,017 and damages for delay of KRW 5,287,064 among them (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Hu107388). Accordingly, the above court received the original payment order on March 28, 2018 by mail, which is the Defendant’s address corrected by the Plaintiff, and received the Defendant’s mother E by serving the original payment order, etc. by mail. The Defendant submitted the written objection against the above payment order to the above court on March 28, 2018. The Defendant appears to have been at the detention house at the time when the original of the payment order was served on the Defendant’s domicile, and the Defendant appears to have prepared and submitted the written objection directly at the detention house after receiving the original of the payment order from his family, etc. according to the demand procedure. The Defendant’s notification was not served as the date for pleading.
Accordingly, the court of first instance sent the notice of the date of pleading on June 12, 2018 to the above address of the defendant and sent the notice of the date of pleading on June 13, 2018. On June 26, 2018, the notice of the change of the date of pleading was not served as the addressee's absence. Thus, in light of the register of the company register (Evidence No. 4) of G Co., Ltd. with the defendant's father as the representative director, the notice of change of the date of pleading was sent to the above address, and H, which is the receipt of the notice of mail delivery, appears to be a clerical error of F,
In July 18, 2018, this was received.
3) On July 25, 2018, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff by opening the date for pleading and the date for sentencing on July 25, 2018, and delivered the original of the judgment of the first instance to the Defendant on July 30, 2018, but is not served due to the absence of closure. On August 9, 2018, the original of the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice on August 24, 2018, and the service became effective. 4) The Defendant was against the judgment of the first instance.