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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If the original copy, the original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, 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 to correct it within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

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. Thus, barring any special circumstance, 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 party or legal representative

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

In the first instance court, both the duplicate and original copy of the instant complaint were served on the Defendant by means of service by public notice; the Defendant was issued with the original copy of the first instance judgment on February 10, 2017; and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of the instant case on February 13, 2017, which is within two weeks from February 10, 2017, is obvious in records or significant in this court.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. On June 13, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C, which sets the sales price of KRW 20 million and the sales price of KRW 3,300 square meters and KRW 122 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate” in the following) prior to D prior to D, 300 square meters and E prior to E, which was owned by the Plaintiff, on June 13, 2003 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant, the death money of C, as the agent of C, was present at C, but the Defendant was the agent of C in the sales contract.