대여금
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. In the first instance court’s determination on the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, all litigation documents, such as a copy of complaint against the defendant and a notice of date for pleading, have been served by public notice, and pleadings have been proceeded with. On November 27, 2018, the judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff was also served on the defendant by public notice. The original judgment of the first instance court was also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant was issued an authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance court on February 19, 2019, which was not known of the instant lawsuit and the judgment of the first instance court, and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on February 21, 2019, which is within two weeks thereafter, may be recognized by this court or by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings.
In such a case, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period, due to failure to know the progress and result of the lawsuit in this case due to a cause not attributable to himself. Therefore, the subsequent appeal in this case filed within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist is lawful.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant lent KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant on April 14, 2014, and the defendant borrowed KRW 10,000 from the plaintiff, and the defendant is the debtor who borrowed KRW 10,000,00 from the plaintiff, and the defendant merely provided the plaintiff with the idea of producing the entertainment machine to newly develop the defects to operate the entertainment production and development business together with the plaintiff, and without any choice to force the plaintiff, the defendant signed the certificate of monetary rent stated as the debtor.
B. As long as the authenticity of the judgment document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document, unless there is any counter-proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da8418, Jul. 12, 1991). In light of the above legal doctrine, the instant case was made by health room, Gap evidence No. 1, and the Defendant’s document was made by coercion of the Plaintiff.