1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Review of the record on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal reveals the following facts.

In the first instance trial, a copy of the complaint of this case and the date of pleading against the defendant were served by service by public notice, and the pleading was proceeded, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered on January 13, 2016, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice.

However, the Defendant was aware of the progress of the instant pleadings and the pronouncement of the judgment. On January 9, 2017, the record of the instant case was perused, and only became aware that the said judgment was rendered, which led to filing an appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case on January 12, 2017.

In such a case, barring any other special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, by failing to know the progress and result of the instant lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 7 million at the Defendant’s request. Since the Defendant did not repay this, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Around May 31, 2013, Defendant husband C was in a partnership relationship with the Plaintiff to operate a single-type shop. However, in order to use it as a business fund for the said partnership relationship between C and the Plaintiff, KRW 7 million was deposited with the Defendant’s account in order to use it as a business fund for the said partnership relationship between C and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not lend the above money to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant on May 31, 2013.

A criminal complaint is filed on the following grounds, which is recognized as a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Eul, for the following reasons: ① the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 7 million under the pretext of construction cost, even though C was not able to repay on May 31, 2013; which is, the Defendant’s money from the Plaintiff.