The judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. If the original copy of a written complaint, the original copy of the judgment, etc. are served by the method of public notice as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the fact is dismissed.

Here, “after the absence of any other reason” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by means of public notice, rather than the mere fact that the party or legal representative was served, and, barring any other special circumstance, the party or legal representative became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by means of public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new authentic copy of the judgment.

In light of the overall purport of the records and arguments in this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim on February 12, 2016 after serving a copy of the complaint, notification of the date of pleading, etc. to the Defendant by public announcement, and served the Defendant on February 18, 2016. The judgment was served on the Defendant by serving public notice on February 18, 2016, and the Defendant became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment and its judgment was served on October 12, 2020 after inspecting the records of the case on October 12, 202. Thus, the appeal in this case filed by the Defendant on October 16, 2020 is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant borrowed five million won from the plaintiff on March 13, 2002, and thereafter agreed to pay the above money until September 30, 2002.