1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the lawful records of subsequent appeal, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was unaware of the service of the first instance judgment without negligence, as the application for payment order was impossible to be served, and the lawsuit was brought from the first instance to the litigation by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment was also served by public notice.

Furthermore, the Defendant, after obtaining a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance on June 27, 2019, becomes aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by means of service by public notice, and it can be recognized that the Defendant submitted a petition of appeal subsequent to the same date. Thus, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. According to the evidence evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff, on February 6, 2008, lent 200,000 won to the Defendant, who operates the “C” in the Han River-si, the Han River-si, the Han River-si, and the amount of 60% interest per annum (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 2 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. The defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff repaid all of the instant loans to the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations expired since the Defendant borrowed the instant loan in order to use it for operating funds of singing banks operated by the Defendant.

In full view of the statements in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant, who operated a singing room, borrowed a loan in order to use it as operating funds.

Therefore, the instant loan obligations are commercial obligations. Since it is apparent in the record that the application for payment order was received on November 28, 2017 from April 11, 2008, when five years have elapsed since the due date for payment. Thus, the instant loan obligations are the loans of this case.