beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the ancillary claim added by this court are all available.
Reasons
1. Whether the appeal of this case is lawful or not, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notice of date for pleading, etc. and served the plaintiff's claim by public notice, and then served the defendant by means of service. The original copy of the first instance judgment also served on the defendant by public notice. On September 27, 2018, the defendant was aware of the fact of serving the third debtor with the title of execution of the above judgment on the seizure of claims and collection order, and notified the fact of serving the original copy of the judgment by public notice. On October 1, 2018, the fact that the second instance court served the subsequent appeal of this case on the third debtor with the title of execution was proved by the declaration of the first instance judgment and the service by public notice of the original
According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to comply with the appeal period due to the failure of the court of first instance to know the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice without negligence, and the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from September 27, 2018, which became aware of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion is lawful.
2. Basic facts
A. On August 2005, the Plaintiff lent KRW 58 million to C, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s husband agreed that D, who is the Defendant’s husband, will receive the above loan from C in lieu of the above loan.
Accordingly, on November 14, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred the above loan claims to the Defendant, and C prepared a notarial deed stating that “A debtor C shall pay 60 million won, which he borrowed from the Defendant on November 14, 2005, by May 13, 2006, and pay interest at 18% per annum per annum (Law Firm E, Law Firm No. 6407, 2005) to the Defendant.”
B. On September 28, 2006, C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to F. 545 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Seopo-do, Seopo-do, Seopo-do (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Defendant (the actual actor is D, and the Defendant or D is recorded as the Defendant or D) based on the said notarial deed.