The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. According to the records of this case as to the legitimacy of the appeal of this case and significant facts in this court, the first instance court rendered a judgment of the first instance court that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim on April 7, 2015 after serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant and a notice of the date of pleading by public notice, and rendered a judgment of the first instance court that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim on April 7, 2015. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the Defendant by public notice on April 9, 2015. The Defendant was issued a certified copy of the first instance judgment on July 12, 2019 and became aware that the judgment was delivered by public notice, and that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. The Defendant filed the appeal of this case on July 22, 2019, the date

Thus, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period because he was unaware of the progress and progress of the lawsuit of this case due to a cause not attributable to himself.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is filed within the lawful appeal period.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant invested 15 million won from October 2012, each of them, and the distribution of investment and earnings was set at 50:50.

The Plaintiff used 40 million won in total as operating fund by borrowing KRW 22 million ( KRW 12 million, KRW 10 million, KRW 10 million, KRW 18 million, and KRW 40 million, including borrowing KRW 18 million from E, on a two-time basis, due to the need for more operating funds in the course of running the Plaintiff’s business.

On the other hand, the defendant was used to pay 6 million won from the trader(F).

A business relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated around December 2013 by the Defendant, including that the Defendant did not work after useful goods prices, and that from January 2014, the contact was not made.

The partnership property did not remain at all at all at the time of the completion of the partnership business between the original defendant, and the defendant is useful for the plaintiff and the defendant, with the settlement of accounts for the partnership business, invested by the plaintiff in addition to the operating capital.