beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, the court of first instance rendered a judgment to serve the Defendants with a notice of the copy of the instant complaint and the date for pleading by public notice, and to accept the Plaintiff’s claim on September 26, 2012. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendants by public notice. On May 24, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for seizure execution of movable property against Defendant C with the Gwangju District Court 2018 main text2118, designating the original copy of the judgment of first instance as the title of execution. The Defendants became aware of the fact that the original copy of the judgment of first instance was served on May 31, 2018 after receipt of the notice of execution of seizure, and that the original copy was served by public notice by public notice. It is recognized that the Plaintiff filed the appeal of this case on June 14, 2018.
Thus, the defendants could not observe the period of appeal because they were unaware of the fact that the court of first instance was sentenced due to a cause not attributable to them, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. Thus, the appeal for subsequent completion of appeal of this case is lawful.
2. Assertion and determination
A. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to Defendant B on December 30, 2006 without due date. Defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligation; Defendant C urged the Plaintiff to repay the loan and interest; the Defendants, upon reflecting interest accrued during the period on June 6, 2009, shall adjust the loan obligation amounting to KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff. Of them, the amount of KRW 5 million was immediately repaid and the remainder amount of KRW 40 million was agreed to be repaid from August 20, 2009 to KRW 1 million. However, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff failed to repay the loan obligation to the Plaintiff, yet the Defendants failed to repay the loan amounting to KRW 45 million.