1. Of the part concerning the payment of money in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount exceeds the amount ordered to be paid.

1. According to the record of the instant case as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, the first instance court served a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, and tried to cite the Plaintiff’s claim on May 13, 2016, and served an original copy of the judgment on the Defendant by public notice on May 18, 2016.

On June 24, 2016, the Defendant received an original copy of the judgment of the first instance and became aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on June 29, 2016.

Therefore, since the defendant could not comply with the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to him, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date on which the court of first instance became aware of the fact by public notice is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. The instant housing and the instant building and the instant building of the wooden roof in Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, Cand 268 square meters and on its ground (hereinafter “instant building”) were owned by the Plaintiff’s put-down D. Since D died, the Plaintiff, one of its successors, is managed by the Plaintiff.

B. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff’s child E concluded, on behalf of the Plaintiff, a lease agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, stipulating that deposit amount of KRW 2 million for the instant housing and buildings is KRW 10 million per year, annual rent of KRW 10 million, and the lease period from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Around that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant house and building to the Defendant pursuant to the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant paid KRW 12 million in total, including deposit and annual rent.

C. By September 30, 2015, which is the expiration date of the instant lease term, the Plaintiff did not notify the Defendant of the refusal of renewal or alteration of the terms and conditions. The Defendant expressed his intent not to renew the lease contract to the Plaintiff on October 3, 2015 without paying the annual rent, and thereafter, from around that time to the closing date of argument in the instant case.