1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 18,673,930 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from August 12, 2015 to June 13, 2019 against the Defendant.

1. In the first instance court as to whether the appeal of this case was lawful, the duplicate of the complaint of this case was unable to be served to the Defendant as “closed absence,” and the lawsuit was initiated from the beginning by public notice, and the fact that the original copy of the judgment was served by public notice was obvious in the record, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was unaware of the service of the first instance judgment

Furthermore, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was served by means of service by public notice after receiving contact that the Defendant’s deposit account was seized from a financial institution on August 6, 2018 from the financial institution and obtaining a certified copy of the first instance judgment on August 14, 2018, and only after confirmation, it was found that the Defendant filed a subsequent petition of appeal on August 20, 2018, which is within two weeks thereafter. Thus, the instant subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 38,401,112 to the I Bank Account (Account Number: J. hereinafter “instant Bank Account”) in the name of Defendant Management Business Operator M, who notified the Plaintiff of the fact that “the Plaintiff would have been involved in the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and would return the money in the Plaintiff’s deposit account and installment savings account to the National Security Account after investigating whether it is not related to the crime if the Plaintiff transferred the money in the Plaintiff’s deposit account to the National Security Account.”

B. When the Defendant transferred money to the bank account of this case, the Defendant withdrawn the money and delivered it to the employees of the Defendant for the crime of Bophishing.

C. On November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff received a refund of KRW 1,053,252 as a refund for loss pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Special Act on the Prevention of Loss Caused by Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud and the Refund of Damages.

On January 8, 2016, the defendant is given instructions from the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office' Office.