1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the records of this case as to the legitimacy of the appeal for late payment, when the payment order of this case against the defendant was sent to B and 4 stories at the time when the defendant had his domicile on the defendant's resident registration, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on May 24, 2012 after serving the application for the payment order of this case and the notice of the date of pleading by service by public notice. The above certified copy of the judgment also served by public notice and served the defendant on June 5, 2012. The defendant was notified that the deposit claim was seized by the bank on April 1, 2014 and became known that the judgment of first instance was rendered at that time. Accordingly, according to the above facts, the defendant could not comply with the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to himself, and thus, the defendant raised the appeal of this case from April 1, 2014 to April 20, 2014.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. (i) Around October 2001, the Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract between C and C with respect to D New Franchisa car owned by C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

Shed the instant vehicle was stolen on September 1, 2002 on the front day of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Park Dong-dong.

(2) On the other hand, on October 15, 2001, the right to collateral security was established in the name of Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd.) with the secured claim amounting to KRW 14,000,000 on the instant vehicle. On March 26, 2003, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,490,000 of its own vehicle damage insurance money to Hyundai Capital Capital with the delegation of C on March 26, 2003.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2 through 5, 7, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleading

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion) is in accordance with Article 682 of the Commercial Act.