1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. According to the records and records, the court of first instance’s determination as to the legitimacy of appeal No. 1: (a) served a copy of the complaint of this case against the defendant by means of service by public notice on the date for pleading, notification of the date for pleading, etc.; (b) served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the defendant by public notice; and (c) served on the defendant by means of service; and (d) the defendant becomes aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served on August 13, 2014 by public notice, and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on August 18, 201

According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the defendant filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from August 13, 2014, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On November 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant divide the profits of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, including the Plaintiff’s her husband C, to remodel the first floor guest room 7 partitions, but instead, to provide 7 partitionss in the apartment room, the Plaintiff would have divided the profits of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, one-half of the profits of deducting the Defendant’s 2 million won per month from the profits of the operation, including the Plaintiff’s alteration of the restaurant, and the Plaintiff’s expenses, such as the restaurant, and the restaurant equipment, and the meal equipment, from the profits of the operation.

Although the Defendant was able to cover KRW 10 million for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not perform the tegrative construction. Accordingly, the Plaintiff invested KRW 40 million for the tegrative construction, and demanded the Defendant to pay only KRW 18 million for the tegrative expenses.

The Defendant did not appear even after the completion of the interior construction, and the Plaintiff’s operation of the restaurant is able to bring all of the cafeterias, such as the cafeterias, and the cafeterias, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant will bear the incidental costs.