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. According to the records of this case as to the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal after completion of the appeal, and significant facts in this court, the first instance court served the defendant with the main complaint and notice of the date of pleading, etc. by means of public notice and made pleadings, and sentenced to the judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim on April 1, 2015. The original judgment also served on the defendant by means of public notice service, and the plaintiff filed an application for registration in the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Kabu2133, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Kabu2133, which became final and conclusive on April 7, 2016, and the copy of the decision was served on the defendant by means of public notice, and the defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records of the above application with the Seoul Southern District Court on February 13, 2020, and then filed a request for perusal and duplication of the records of the case with the Seoul Southern District Court.

2. 27. It is recognized that the appeal of the instant subsequent completion was filed.

Therefore, the Defendant, without negligence, was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant’s failure to know that the judgment of the first instance was served by means of public notice service, and was deemed to have filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date the judgment of the first instance became served by means of public notice service. Thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-1, 2-2, 3, and 4 of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-2, and 3 and 4, the plaintiff received a bill discount from the defendant around January 6, 1997 and paid a bill discount to the defendant on April 20, 1997. Even around February 5, 1997, the plaintiff received a bill discount from the defendant and paid the bill discount to the defendant, each of which was issued by the defendant on May 20, 1997, and each of which was paid on three days.