beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In the first instance court as to whether the appeal of this case was lawful, the duplicate of the complaint of this case was unable to be served to the Defendant as “closed absence,” and the lawsuit was initiated from the beginning by public notice, and the fact that the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice was obvious in the record, so it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was unaware of the service of the first instance judgment without
Furthermore, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant appears to have become aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice after obtaining a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance on February 22, 2019, and it was recognized that the Defendant submitted a petition of appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion on February 22, 2019, within two weeks from that date. Thus, the appeal of this case is lawful.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff
A. While managing the Plaintiff’s passbook and security card, the Defendant alleged unjust enrichment by transferring KRW 4,500,000 from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account on December 5, 2009 and KRW 4,500,000 on January 26, 2010. The Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 4,50,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”).
B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the following facts and circumstances, i.e., the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant by embezzlement of the plaintiff's company funds, but the Busan District Prosecutors' Office rendered a disposition of non-prosecution to the defendant on the grounds that there was no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant embezzled money on June 26, 2015, the defendant served as the financial personnel of the company operated by the plaintiff, ② The defendant served as the financial personnel of the company operated by the plaintiff, and ③ some of the expenses related to the company operated by the plaintiff from the account in the defendant's name were withdrawn.