1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operated a fee placement office, and the Defendant served from July 2007 to November 2008 as an employee at the above placement office operated by the Plaintiff.

B. On July 2, 2007, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 7 million from the Plaintiff on the same day as the second day of interest and the due date set by August 2, 2007.” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

C. From October 4, 2007 to November 12, 2008, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 17,060,000 to the account under the Defendant’s name for twenty-four occasions.

The details of specific transfers shall be as follows:

8. 0. 20. 200, 200, 200. 8. 200, 200. 8. 20, 200, 200. 16. 20,000, 2008. 13. 20,000, 2008. 30. 8. 10,000, 2008. 13. 10, 2008. 8. 10, 200, 2008. 3. 8. 10,000, 200, 20. 8. 8. 10, 200, 36. 8. 10, 200, 200, 2008. 13. 200, 200, 2007

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

The term "after the cause has ceased to exist" in this context is not simply when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that there was a judgment, but further the judgment.