1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, the appeal for subsequent completion may be filed within two weeks from the date such cause ceases

The "date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, and further the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice is known.

In ordinary cases, only when a party or legal representative peruses the records of the case or receives a new original of the judgment, it shall be deemed that he/she became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). After a notice of the date for pleading, etc. was served on the Defendant by public notice, the first instance judgment was rendered, and the original copy of the first instance judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the Defendant was issued the original copy of the judgment on December 20, 2018, and submitted the instant written appeal to the court of first instance at the court of first instance on the 24th of the same month is apparent in the record.

According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the appeal period due to the failure of the court of first instance to know that the judgment was delivered by public notice without negligence, and thus the defendant could not be responsible for such failure.

Since the court of first instance filed a subsequent appeal within two weeks from the time it became aware that the judgment was served by public notice, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of discharge defense against the Defendant is based on the acquisition by transfer of the loan claims against the Defendant by C Co., Ltd., and damages for delay on the principal amounting to KRW 2,006,529 and the principal amounting to KRW 658,410.