1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 3, the first instance court’s judgment, including the contents of accepting the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc., by public notice, on the whole purport of the pleadings, can be acknowledged that the original copy of the judgment of the first instance is also served on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on November 17, 2015, after being issued the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on November 16, 2015, is apparent.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the court of first instance filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from November 16, 2015, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. On the merits, the Plaintiff seeks payment from the Defendant of the acquisition amount stated in the purport of the claim.

In full view of the facts stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 above, the credit-based loan was applied for the grant of succession execution clause on Jun. 25, 2009, and the certified copy of the succeeded execution clause was served on the defendant by public notice. The credit-based loan is acknowledged based on the judgment of the court of first instance that declared provisional execution on Oct. 20, 2015, based on the judgment of the court of first instance where provisional execution was declared on Oct. 20, 2015, which issued the order of seizure and collection as to the deposit claims against the defendant's new bank, the court of first instance issued the order of seizure and collection. Thus, the plaintiff transferred his claim against the defendant to the company of this credit-based loan after the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the claim against the defendant belongs to the plaintiff is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant.