beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. According to the records on the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, the court of first instance may acknowledge the fact that the court served the Defendants a duplicate of the complaint of this case, notice of the date for pleading, etc., on the grounds of service by public notice, and subsequently rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim. The original copy of the judgment of the first instance also served on the Defendants by public notice, and the Defendants came to know of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice on July 1, 2015, and submitted the appeal for subsequent completion on July 3, 2015.
According to the above facts, the Defendants could not observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendants, and the Defendants filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from July 2, 2015, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice. Thus, the Defendants’ appeal for subsequent completion is lawful.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. The facts of recognition 1) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants against the defendants on November 20, 1996, which was brought by the plaintiff as the main branch of Chuncheon District Court 96Ra3882. The defendant Eul borrowed 30 million won from the plaintiff on March 10, 1996, and the defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant Eul's above loan obligation, the defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 30 million won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from March 11, 1996 to the day of full payment. The plaintiff was finally affirmed on December 22, 196. The plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the defendants on charges of fraud, etc., and on August 14, 1995, 196, the original branch of Chuncheon District Prosecutors' Office was not clear.
3) Meanwhile, on October 21, 2003, Defendant B’s father D, while the Defendants had been living with the Defendant, repaid the amount of KRW 15 million out of the outstanding loan borrowed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, and instead drafted and delivered a written agreement from the Plaintiff on the same day. The written agreement prepared by the Plaintiff on the same day (Evidence A 1, 2).