1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On October 17, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on the lawfulness of the subsequent appeal by serving a copy of the complaint, notification of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff, and also served the original copy of the judgment to 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 November 3, 2015.

The appeal filed by the defendant on November 16, 2015, 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 April 22, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant store”) with the sales commission equivalent to 4% of the monthly sales amounting to KRW 1 million based on the Defendant’s day-to-day day-to-day day-to-day day-day day-to-day day-day day-day day-to-day day-day day (hereinafter “instant contract”). In the event of loss as a result of inventory inspection, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to reduce the sales commission paid or to be paid (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Plaintiff decided to organize the instant store on August 13, 2012, and accordingly, the Defendant packaged the remaining clothes and stored them in the distribution company designated by the Plaintiff.

C. On the following day, the Defendant visited the logistics company to check the inventory of the clothing put into storage, but did not confirm all of the retirement time of the logistics company.

After that, without the involvement of the defendant, the plaintiff conducted a inventory inspection.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 3, testimony of party witness C, purport of whole pleadings

3. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion results of inventory inspection of the store of this case 24.