1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. According to the records of this case, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with the Jung-gu District Court 2006 Ghana23655, which sought payment of the purchase price, and received a favorable judgment from the above court on May 18, 2006. The above judgment became final and conclusive on June 24, 2006. (2) On March 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for an order for payment to extend the statute of limitations of the above judgment against the Defendant under the jurisdiction of the Namyang-si District Court 2016 tea-si Court 2035, Namyang-si District Court 2016, and the above court issued the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) against the Defendant on March 17, 2016. The Defendant served the original copy of the instant payment order on June 12, 2016, and thereafter filed an objection against the foregoing court on June 13, 2016.

3) On August 13, 2016, upon the Defendant’s filing of the foregoing objection, the court of first instance sent a notice of first instance to the Defendant on August 13, 2016, but was not served as a closed door, and sent the notice to the Defendant on August 30, 2016. On September 23, 2016, the first instance court sent the notice to the Defendant on September 23, 2016 and sent it on October 6, 2016. 4), which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on October 13, 2016, and sent the original copy of the first instance judgment to the Defendant on October 28, 2016, but was not served as a closed door, and thus, the original copy of the first instance judgment was served by public notice in accordance with the order of service by public notice and became effective as of November 12, 2016.

5) The Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on December 15, 2016, which is obvious after 14 days from the date of service of the original copy of the judgment of the first instance. (B) The “reasons for which the parties cannot be held responsible” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the “reasons for which the parties cannot be held responsible” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, even though the parties had paid due attention to conduct litigation, the period cannot be observed.