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. On December 14, 2012, the first instance court’s determination as to whether an appeal for subsequent completion is lawful, the fact that the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice on December 19, 2012, after serving a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice on the date of pleading against the defendant, and served on the defendant by public notice on the record.

On the other hand, the defendant, after being issued a certified copy of the judgment of the court of first instance on June 2, 2017, became aware that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice, filed an appeal for subsequent completion on the same day.

Therefore, since the defendant failed to observe the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date on which the court of first instance became aware of the fact by public notice is lawful.

2. Determination

A. The facts of recognition 1) On September 25, 2008, the Defendant prepared and delivered a cash custody certificate to the Plaintiff on September 25, 2008, stating that “the Defendant shall receive and keep KRW 9,00,000 from the Plaintiff in cash,” and “the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff until December 30, 2009, and shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum if the commitment is not fulfilled.” 2) On October 21, 2009, the Defendant applied for bankruptcy and exemption with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Hadan27352, 2009,27352. At the time, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s credit (hereinafter “instant claim”) under the said cash custody certificate were not stated in the list of creditors at the time.

3) On October 27, 2011, the above court rendered a decision to discontinue the bankruptcy and grant immunity (hereinafter “decision to grant immunity of this case”).

A) Around that time, each of the above decisions became final and conclusive. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. The Defendant’s main defense and judgment 1) thought that the Defendant’s main defense had included the instant claim while filing a petition for bankruptcy. The Defendant’s instant obligation (the claim is the debtor’s rehabilitation and judgment).