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 public notice, and the pleading was proceeded, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered on October 23, 2009, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice.

However, the Defendant became aware of the progress of the instant pleadings and the pronouncement of the judgment on August 30, 2016, and became aware of the said judgment through the case search on August 30, 2016, and filed an appeal to the instant appeal on September 12, 2016, which was within 14 days thereafter.

In this case, barring any special circumstance, 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 lawsuit in this case due to a cause not attributable to himself

Therefore, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. The Plaintiff sought the return of the purchase price stated in the purport of the claim on the ground that the Plaintiff purchased the vehicle to the Defendant, but failed to operate the vehicle, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

The records of the first instance trial are already discarded after the period of preservation has already elapsed before the defendant's legitimate appeal for completion, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and examined by the plaintiff cannot be present at present, and as a result, the first instance court, which is a small-sum case, is proceeding by service by public notice, is not stated the reasons in the first instance judgment

The plaintiff is not only in a state in which the plaintiff is unable to answer the defendant's arguments and to state his/her opinion on the method of evidence after being served with a duplicate of the petition of appeal, statement of grounds of appeal, etc. by public notice at the trial, but also in a state

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is concluded differently.