1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. According to the records of this case, the first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim on November 27, 2013 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, with respect to the Defendant, and subsequently serving the Defendant by means of service on November 29, 2013. The original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice.

On November 30, 2016, the Defendant received an original copy of the judgment of the first instance on November 30, 2016 and became aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on December 1, 2016.

Therefore, since the defendant could not comply with the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to him, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date on which the court of first instance became aware of the fact by public notice is lawful.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the first place, the network D supplied the Defendant with 40,000,000 fire saws and fire saws purchased from E and F, with the Defendant’s supply of fire saws and fire saws. However, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff and the selected party C, who is the heir of the network D, with the purchase price, such as fire saws according to inheritance shares, and damages for delay. 2) In the second place, even if the purchase price of fire saws is not recognized, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff and the selected party C with 40,000,000 won (or 30,000,000,000 won, respectively, but did not pay it. Therefore, the Plaintiff and the selected party, who is the heir of the networkD, are obligated to pay the principal of the debt and damages for delay due to inheritance shares.

B. The defendant's assertion that he was supplied with fire fighting units from the network D.

However, although the defendant borrowed KRW 3,00,000 from the network D, the defendant is not obligated to pay it because the extinctive prescription has already expired.

3. Determination

A. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone as to the primary argument is sufficient to support the Defendant.