1. Defendant with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance exceeding the money ordered to be paid below.

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was filed since he left the U.S. on March 27, 1992 and continued to live there, and thus, he was unaware of the filing of the instant lawsuit. However, the Plaintiff knew that the instant lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff on July 7, 2014 from D, who was served the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, and he was aware of this fact. The Defendant filed an appeal for the instant subsequent completion on August 6, 2014, within 30 days thereafter. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit was lawful, and the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with this.

B. The facts of recognition 1) The defendant is a married couple with the co-defendant C of the first instance trial. Since his departure from the United States on March 27, 1992, the defendant lives together with C, and the status of entry and departure of the defendant are as follows. On March 3, 1992, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea on March 11, 1991, the date of entry into the Republic of Korea was as follows. On October 4, 20106, 20106, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the defendant and C on March 31, 2012, 2012, and the court of first instance was unable to serve the copy of the complaint by public notice.

On October 21, 1994, the above court sentenced the plaintiff's winning judgment (hereinafter "the judgment of the first instance court of this case") and served the original of the judgment by public notice.

3) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and C with the Seoul Central District Court 2004Kadan57944 for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription period. The above court served the Defendant with a duplicate of the complaint on the domicile of the Defendant-friendly money. On March 29, 2004, a duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant. On the other hand, the above court served on C by public notice on April 19, 2004. On the other hand, the above court rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on May 27, 2004, and both the Defendant and C served the original copy of the judgment. (4) The Plaintiff served on the Seoul East East District Court for the extension of the extinctive prescription period again.