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 are apparent in records:

1) On January 26, 2016, B, the Defendant’s general affairs department B received the original copy of the instant payment order (Tgu District Court 2016 tea137) and a statement of demand procedure guidance from “C,” which is the Defendant’s office’s domicile. (2) The Defendant filed a written objection with the Daegu District Court on February 3, 2016, and the said application for payment order was implemented as the instant lawsuit upon the Defendant’s objection.

3) On March 22, 2016, the first instance court served a notice on the date for pleading, which was sent to the Defendant on March 31, 2016, but was not served due to the absence of closure. On April 26, 2016, the first instance court sent the notice to the Defendant on March 31, 2016, which was sent on the date for pleading, but was sent on May 3, 2016 to the addressee who was not served due to the addressee’s unknown address. On May 18, 2016, the original copy of the judgment was sent to the Defendant on May 24, 2016, but was sent to the Defendant on May 24, 2016, because the service of the original copy of the judgment became effective, and the period of appeal for the second week was exceeded, and thereafter submitted a petition of appeal on June 27, 2016.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “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 the party had exercised a general duty to act in the course of 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 pronouncement and delivery of the judgment, shall be asserted by the party who intends to subsequently supplement the appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da103394, Mar. 28, 2013).

In light of the relevant legal principles, the defendant was served with a payment order and became aware of the fact that the lawsuit in this case is pending by raising an objection thereto. Thus, the defendant is thereafter dismissed.