양수금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. The plaintiff asserts that the appeal for subsequent completion is lawful. However, according to the records, on September 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an application against the defendant for the payment order of KRW 12,970,165 of this court from around 6, 2009 to KRW 63636, and damages for delay. When the above original copy of the payment order was impossible to serve on the defendant, the above court served the defendant with a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date for pleading as a service by public notice by public notice, and the above court served the defendant with a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date for pleading on December 22, 2010 and served the defendant with the same court as the same court for the extension of the plaintiff's purport, the above court also served all the documents related to the defendant as a service by public notice, and it is evident that the defendant was issued with the original copy of the appeal on June 31, 2015 by public notice, and it is also evident that the defendant was issued with a copy of the first instance judgment on June 215, 215, 2014.
Therefore, the appeal of this case is lawful.
2. Basic facts
A. On May 9, 2002, the Defendant borrowed 3,000,000 won from the Daegu Bank (hereinafter “Tgu Bank”) as “7% per annum’s interest rate,” “18% per annum, delay damages rate, and May 9, 2003 (which was extended once on May 9, 2004)” (hereinafter “one debt”) and received the loan (hereinafter “the first debt”), and (2) on August 24, 200, the Defendant changed its trade name in sequence to “EL branch card Co.,, Ltd.” and “new credit card Co., Ltd.”.
(c).