1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The following facts may be acknowledged by the purport of each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 9 and all pleadings in this Court:

1) On November 19, 2007, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. The court of first instance intended to serve a copy of the instant complaint at the Defendant’s domicile but became impossible to serve due to the absence of closure. 2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment on February 20, 2008 that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3 million and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from February 2, 2008 to the date of full payment.” On March 4, 2008, the original copy of the first instance judgment was served by means of service by public notice.

3) On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a loan with the Incheon District Court 2017Gaso1719 (hereinafter “the lawsuit demanding the extension of the statute of limitations”) on November 27, 2017, in order to interrupt the interruption of the statute of limitations of claims based on the judgment

(4) On November 13, 2017, the Defendant filed the instant appeal against the judgment of the first instance court on December 13, 2017.

B. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware of the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court on November 30, 2017, on which a copy of the complaint for extension of prescription was served, and since the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal was due to any cause not attributable to the defendant, the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal is due to the cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, an appeal following the subsequent supplement of this case filed by the defendant within two

C. On September 27, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written statement demanding the performance of an obligation based on the judgment of the first instance court, and a written judgment of the first instance court by content-certified mail, and the foregoing content-certified mail.

9. 9.