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.

In the judgment of the first instance court on the legitimacy of appeal for the completion of the appeal, all the litigation documents, such as a copy of complaint against the defendant and the date of pleading, were served by public notice, and the pleadings have been proceeded with. On December 20, 2012, the judgment of the court of first instance was also served on the defendant by public notice. The original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance was also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant was aware that he was served with a written notice on the decision of the non-performance list, etc. from the Changwon District Court on April 2, 2019, while he was not aware of the fact that the judgment was served on the defendant on April 10, 2019. The fact that the appeal of this case was filed on April 10, 2019 can be recognized

In such a case, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period, due to failure to know the progress and result of the lawsuit in this case due to a cause not attributable to himself. Therefore, the subsequent appeal in this case filed within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist is lawful.

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the merits was that Nonparty D as the site manager, and that the construction company to which the Defendant was an employee of the Defendant requested the construction of gas stations. On November 7, 2009, the Plaintiff heard that expenses are needed to AS related to the said construction, and remitted KRW 1.4 million to the designated account by the Defendant.

However, in fact, E.S. does not need to be required, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the amount of 1.4 million won and the delay damages due to the return of unjust enrichment.

Judgment

Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a benefit from another’s property or services without any legal cause and thereby causes loss to the other person shall return such benefit.”

In the case of the so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties has paid a certain amount of benefits according to his own will and demanded the return on the grounds that there is no legal ground for the benefits.