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

1. According to the record as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant on April 23, 2014 by serving a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date of pleading on the defendant by public notice, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on April 23, 2014. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant on May 2, 2014. On July 28, 2014, the defendant became aware that the judgment of first instance was served by public notice only after receiving the original copy of the judgment of first instance at the court of first instance at the court of first instance on July 28, 2014, and that the appeal of subsequent completion was filed on August 4, 2014. Thus, the defendant was unable to comply with the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date on which such cause disappeared.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the driver of C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 17, 2013, at around 12:55, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle and driven along the parking lot and road in the Jyang-dong in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City with the entrance door of the apartment at the 102 entrance of the apartment at the 102 entrance of the apartment at the 102 entrance, the Defendant caused an accident where the part of the front door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was the left door of the apartment entrance at the 104 entrance of the front door of the apartment at the 104 left door of the 104 entrance of the apartment (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 683,880 as insurance money for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On the other hand, the place where the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle conflict is a parking lot or a road in the apartment complex near the entrance of the Jyangdong-dong Jindong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu (hereinafter "the place of accident in this case"), and the letter "T