1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim (including the part added in the trial) is dismissed.

3...

1. The lawsuit of the first instance court on the legitimacy of the instant appeal was proceeded with the Defendant by means of service from the service of a complaint to the service of a judgment. The Plaintiff became aware that the instant lawsuit was brought by telephone conversations with the Plaintiff on March 18, 2015, and even though the Defendant became aware that the instant lawsuit was served by means of telephone conversations with the Plaintiff’s mother C around August 15, 2015, the instant appeal of the instant case was filed on September 15, 2015 after the lapse of two weeks from the time when the first instance judgment was served by means of telephone conversations with the Plaintiff’s mother C, and thus, the instant appeal of the instant case was unlawful on the ground that the instant appeal of the instant case was filed with the lapse of the filing period. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant became aware that the instant lawsuit of the instant case and the judgment of the first instance was served by means of service by publication through the Plaintiff and C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2. Facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including the number of each party).

On June 23, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant to jointly operate convenience points, and invested KRW 25,000,000.

B. On April 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to engage in the above business as a patrolman, and the convenience store was operated independently by the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to refund the amount of KRW 25,000,000 (hereinafter “instant debt”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. The Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 15,00,000,000 on May 3, 2012, 2012, KRW 5,000,000 on May 25, 2012, and KRW 2,00,000 on July 1, 2012, and KRW 15,00,000 on August 28, 2012.

On the other hand, on July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15,000,000 from the Defendant, and upon commission of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant, as the head of Busan Dong-dong (1018, 2013), on the same day, was 15,000.