1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff, as to the legitimacy of the instant subsequent appeal, asserts that the instant subsequent appeal by the Defendant Company is unlawful, and thus, examined as to the legitimacy of the instant subsequent appeal.

If a copy of the complaint, original copy of the judgment, etc. were served by service 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 is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal for subsequent appeal within two weeks after

(2) On January 30, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment on the same day after serving documents, such as a copy of the complaint, on the part of the defendant company’s representative director C, on the following day: (a) when the service of this case to the address of the defendant company was impossible due to the absence of closure; (b) when the court of first instance received the original copy of the judgment on August 30, 2016 from the defendant company to the address of the representative director C, the special service of the lawsuit documents, including the copy of the complaint, was also impossible due to absence of closure; and (c) the court of first instance rendered a judgment on the same day after the defendant company served with the proceedings in the absence of the defendant company on January 30, 2015; and (d) the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant company by public notice on February 5, 2015; and (e) the defendant company confirmed the above facts on August 30, 2016.

According to this, the defendant company could not comply with the peremptory period for filing a lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to it, and the defendant company filed an appeal to subsequently complete the lawsuit of this case within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Thus, the appeal to complete the lawsuit of this case is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 7, and 11 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant company shall construct, environment, urban planning, electricity, etc.