약속어음금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the records of the appeal, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the defendant on September 9, 1994 after serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of date for pleading by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment on September 9, 1994 by public notice, and then serving the defendant with the original copy of the judgment by public notice at that time. In order to extend the prescription period of the judgment above, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with Seoul Western District Court 2004Gabu12018 and the above judgment became final and conclusive by public notice. The plaintiff again filed an application for a performance recommendation decision with the Incheon Western District Court 2014Gabu27812 for the extension of the prescription period. On February 16, 2015, the defendant became aware of the content of the judgment of the first instance court on July 14, 2015 through an application for fact inquiry, and the fact that the appeal of this case was filed on July 16, 2015, etc.
If so, the defendant could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to him, so the appeal of this case is lawful.
2. The plaintiff's assertion to the following purport, however, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above argument cannot be accepted.
On April 8, 1993, the Plaintiff, via D, discounted promissory notes with “10 million won per face value, C, the issuer C, the date of issuance on March 30, 1993; the date of payment on June 25, 1993; the date of payment on June 25, 1993; the Seoul Special Metropolitan City; the new branch of the National Bank Co., Ltd.; the place of payment; the beneficiary D; the promissory notes with the amount of KRW 10 million on April 17, 1993; the issuer Co., Ltd., Ltd.; the date of payment on March 30, 1993; the date of issuance; the date of payment; the date of payment; the date of payment; the date of payment; the date of payment; the date of payment; the date of payment; the date of payment; and the date of payment; and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.