1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 13 million against the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from August 20, 2014 to December 19, 2018.

On August 22, 2014, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 22, 2014, and served a written judgment by means of service by public notice, after serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, notification of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant’s failure to be aware of the delivery of the judgment without negligence. On June 15, 2018, the first instance court filed an application for perusal and copy with the first instance court and received a certified copy of the judgment, and subsequently, the judgment of the first instance court was rendered by public notice. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Defendant on June 27, 2018, which was two weeks thereafter, is lawful.

Basic Facts

On June 4, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a share acquisition agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant shares”) to purchase KRW 10 million of the purchase price of 20 million stocks to be attached to the Company (hereinafter “instant shares”). The agreement on share acquisition prepared by the Plaintiff and the Defendant contains the term “the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 10 million of the fixed purchase price.”

In addition, on March 27, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3 million to the National Bank account in the name of the Defendant at the Defendant’s request that the automobile repair cost is needed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the part of the claim for refund of share price to the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the defendant with the purchase price of the instant shares, but the defendant asserts that since the agreed shares were not transferred to the plaintiff, the defendant sought the refund of the purchase price.

As to this, the Defendant did not receive KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff as the purchase price of the instant shares, and did not claim that there was no obligation to return the price regardless of whether the shares were transferred or not.

Judgment

The part concerning the receipt of KRW 10 million among the stock acquisition agreement of this case is related to the receipt of money.