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. If the legality, copy, original copy, etc. of a written appeal for subsequent completion are served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered 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. Barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the records of the case

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant filed an appeal on April 22, 2014, with the knowledge of the fact that the first instance court’s judgment was sent by telephone from the employees of the relevant claims collection agency on April 21, 2014 and inspected the records of the first instance court, and subsequently, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that the Defendant filed an appeal on April 22, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da7504, 75051, Jan. 10, 201). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s appeal on March 28, 2014: (b) the Defendant satisfied the requirements for completing the procedural acts; and (c) the Defendant’s appeal on April 22, 2014, with the knowledge of the fact that the said judgment was served by public notice.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant as the purchase price of agricultural products. Among them, the Plaintiff was reimbursed KRW 20,000,000. Therefore, the Defendant is the remainder of the loan to the Plaintiff.