1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff, as to the legitimacy of subsequent appeal, has been avoided by the defendant with knowledge of the existence of the lawsuit in the first instance court, and thus, the appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.

Unless there exist special circumstances, if a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, the defendant did not know the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and thus, a subsequent appeal may be filed within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051 Decided January 10, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051). However, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on July 23, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice on the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and rendered a favorable judgment to the Defendant by public notice

8. 22. The fact that the court of first instance has submitted a subsequent appeal to the court of first instance on the same day after the inspection of the records of the first instance is evident; and

Therefore, the defendant's subsequent appeal of this case is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts. Therefore, the plaintiff's above defense is without merit.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant and C lend KRW 10 million to the defendant and the defendant, and thereafter, promissory notes (Evidence No. 2) and a statement of payment (Evidence No. 3) from them.