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.

1. On September 25, 2015, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on September 25, 2015 after serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice. On October 6, 2015, the original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, and the Defendant received the original copy of the first instance judgment on May 3, 2019 and became aware that the first instance judgment was served by public notice, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on the same day by being recognized by the purport of all pleadings.

Thus, the defendant could not comply with the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date the court of first instance became aware of the service by public notice is lawful.

[The plaintiff asserted that the decision on the registration of the defaulters' list against the defendant (Tgu District Court 2018Kau892) was delivered to the defendant around November 9, 2018 and the defendant knew of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced around that time. However, the fact that the decision on the registration of the defaulters' list was delivered to the defendant by means of service by public notice is obvious to this court, and it does not affect the conclusion that the subsequent appeal of this case is legitimate) 2. The decision on the grounds of the claim and the defense of ex

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence and the whole arguments, it is recognized that the plaintiff is a person who runs the business of importing, processing and construction of stone, etc. with the trade name of "C", and from March 2008 to June 2008, the plaintiff supplied stone to the defendant from March 2008 and received only 23 million won out of the construction price of 41 million won, and did not receive the remainder of 18 million won. The defendant confirmed the quotation (Evidence A 1) prepared by the plaintiff at the bottom of June 9, 2008, stating that "the amount of construction work (amount of 41 million won, settlement amount of 23 million won, and 23 million won out of the balance before and after June 17, 2008."

3.2