1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the records of this case as to whether an appeal for subsequent completion is lawful, the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on April 12, 2016 after serving a duplicate of the complaint, the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and subsequently proceeding with pleadings on April 12, 2016, and the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, and the judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and the Defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced on November 2, 2017, and the fact that the first instance filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of

According to the above facts, the defendant could not be able to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory period, because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself. Thus, the appeal filed within two weeks from the time the defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice was filed within the lawful period of appeal, and is a lawful appeal that satisfies the requirements

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of loans (Ulsan District Court Ulsan Branch 90 Ghana15313). On September 24, 1990, a judicial compromise (hereinafter “the settlement in this case”) was conducted with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from September 19, 1990 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the settlement in this case”).

B. On July 16, 1998, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,321,280 from a compulsory execution procedure against the corporeal movables owned by the Defendant (Ulsan District Court 98No. 3974). On September 28, 2006, the Plaintiff received KRW 163,820 from a compulsory execution procedure against the corporeal movables owned by the Defendant (Ulsan District Court 2006No. 5241). Around that time, the Plaintiff received additional reimbursement of KRW 70,00 from the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit to interrupt the statute of limitations for the claim for payment of the money following the reconciliation of the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute.