1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The lawsuit of the first instance court on the legitimacy of the instant appeal was conducted by means of service from the service of a complaint to the service of a judgment. However, even though the Defendant was notified by the Plaintiff that the judgment of the first instance was rendered by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed a subsequent appeal on February 17, 2016 at the time two weeks elapsed since the date the judgment of the first instance was rendered, and thus, the instant subsequent appeal is deemed unlawful on the ground that the period for filing the lawsuit was exceeded, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was notified by the Plaintiff that the judgment of the first instance was rendered by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The facts under the recognition of facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1.

(1) On December 10, 1999, the Busan District Court Decision 99 Ghana176973, which the plaintiff filed against the defendant, sentenced the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 7 million won and 25% interest per annum from October 17, 1999 to the day of full payment. The above judgment (hereinafter "the final judgment of this case") became final and conclusive on January 11, 200.

(2) On December 8, 2009, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription of a claim based on the said final judgment.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff money that the defendant ordered payment in the above final judgment, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 7,00,000 against the defendant even though he did not deliver KRW 7,00,000 to the defendant around April 18, 1996. The above lawsuit was conducted by means of service by public notice, and the final judgment of this case became final and conclusive. This is based on the above final judgment.