1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court.

purport, purport, and.

1. Judgment on the main defense by the court of first instance

A. In the instant case before the Defendant’s lawsuit was filed, it should be assessed that Nonparty B appeared and participated in litigation on the date of each conciliation that Nonparty B attended as the Plaintiff’s representative director, and that the Plaintiff was absent.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not appear on August 20, 2013, which is the first conciliation date, and accordingly, was absent on September 26, 2013, which is the newly designated date. Accordingly, the instant application for conciliation shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. As long as the instant lawsuit under linkage with the conciliation procedure is deemed to have been withdrawn and terminated on September 26, 2013, the instant application for conciliation is deemed to have been withdrawn, the termination of the lawsuit shall be declared.

B. According to the records of the court of first instance as to the defendant's main defense in the judgment of the court of first instance, although the representative director was changed from B to C, the plaintiff was found to have attended B as the representative director of the plaintiff on the first conciliation date which was held on August 20, 2013 and the second conciliation date which was held on September 26, 2013, without any notification or statement to the conciliation court. Since the plaintiff was absent on two occasions even after the due date was notified, the plaintiff's request for conciliation was deemed to have been withdrawn on September 26, 2013 when the second conciliation date was the date of second conciliation (Article 31 (2) of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act). Since the plaintiff's request for conciliation was rejected on September 26, 2013, the plaintiff's request for conciliation was deemed to have been withdrawn, it was declared that the lawsuit was concluded on the ground that the lawsuit in this case was continued on the date of pleading,

2. Judgment of the court of the trial

(a) The facts under each of the facts of recognition are recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 9, for which there is no dispute between the parties or is apparent in the records, or which

1 The Plaintiff against the Defendant on April 24, 2013 as Seoul Southern District Court 2013S20894.