The judgment below

The part against Defendant C is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court, upon Defendant B’s final appeal, sent KRW 50 million to Defendant C’s account according to the Defendant’s horse that: (a) on October 26, 2012 for the purpose of selling clothing in the television home shopping; and (b) on November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the production of clothing with Defendant C for the purpose of selling clothing; and (c) on November 2, 2012, under the circumstances where the schedule for selling goods or broadcasting in the home shopping was not fixed, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to Defendant C’s account; (b) thereafter, the Plaintiff was notified that the schedule was delayed; and (c) most money paid to Defendant C was not used for the production and supply of products from the instant home shopping; and (d) it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff could not be viewed that the Plaintiff had suffered losses from the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 00,000,000 for the remainder of the Plaintiff’s account.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and by misapprehending the facts against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the appeal by Defendant C

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to observe the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” did not comply with the period, even though the party had paid general attention for conducting the litigation.