1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 2,601,790 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s incidental thereto on September 16, 2012.

1. On September 26, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on the lawfulness of the subsequent appeal by serving a duplicate of the complaint, notification of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff. The original copy of the judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice.

Therefore, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to the reason that the defendant could not be held liable because he was unaware of the delivery of the judgment without negligence.

I would like to say.

According to the records, the judgment of the first instance court was rendered only when the defendant applied for perusal and duplication of the records of trial on May 16, 2014.

The appeal filed by the defendant on May 29, 2014, which was within 14 days from the above, is lawful as satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.

2. Basic facts

A. On June 8, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and Gwangju City C Apartment 106,000,000 won for lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 750,000, monthly rent of KRW 190,000 for lease deposit, monthly rent payment period of KRW 19, June 19, 2010 for lease from June 18, 2012.

B. In entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a special agreement that “The interest rate of 10% per month in arrears shall be paid as welfare every month, and 50% of the present rent shall be paid as penalty every month from the date of designation of the time of notification of the termination of the contract in writing on two or more occasions (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).

C. The Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to assume that the instant apartment is the tea of the instant apartment by September 14, 2012.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 168,300 to the apartment of this case as long as the long-term repair appropriations.

E. On September 15, 2012, the Defendant returned KRW 2,424,260 to the Plaintiff.

[Based on recognition] Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, and 3.