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. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the acquisition amount under this Court No. 2016 Ghana62751.

B. On November 23, 2016, the court of first instance served a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and served on November 23, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the claim amount equivalent to the amount stated in the purport of the claim on the same day, and served the Defendant with the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court by public notice on December 8, 2016.

C. On October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an order for the seizure and collection of claims with the Defendant, the garnishee, the Industrial Bank of Korea, C Co., Ltd., and the Republic of Korea, with the title of execution, with the judgment of the first instance court, and received the order for the seizure and collection of claims (No. 2018 Tasan Branch Branch Office 2018 12662; hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”), and on November 28, 2018, the said court served the Defendant with the original copy of the decision for the seizure and collection order, and directly received it on December 4, 2018.

On June 20, 2019, the defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap-5, and 6 Evidence

2. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "If the parties concerned could not observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to them, they may supplement the litigation conducted by negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist," and "where the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice," under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the time when the defendant was not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was received by public notice. In ordinary cases, the defendant read the records of the case or received the original judgment.