beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful or not, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant on May 29, 2013 after delivering a copy of the complaint and the notice of the date of pleading to the defendant by service by public notice. On June 15, 2013, the original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice. After that, the defendant requested the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Office 2013TTTT7927 with the original copy of the judgment as the title of execution and sent the original copy of the judgment to the third debtor around July 8, 2013, and became aware of the fact that the above original copy of the judgment was served to the third debtor on the ground that the court of first instance was served on the third debtor around July 8, 2013. According to this, the record of the subsequent appeal filed by the defendant on July 12, 2013 or acknowledged by the purport of the whole pleadings. Accordingly, the defendant's filing of an appeal by public notice cannot be deemed legitimate due to service by public notice within the first instance.
2. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. The following facts are clearly stated in the records:
(1) In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and the Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial stating that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from the Military Community Credit Cooperatives of Korea on February 15, 1996, and B jointly guaranteed the Defendant’s above loan obligation, and the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s claim for the above loan. As such, the Defendant and B jointly and severally received the Plaintiff’s claim for the above loan, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 62,496,554 won and 16,146,123 won with 20% interest per annum from June 20, 2012 to the date of full payment.”
(2) However, the defendant and B filed an appeal subsequent to the subsequent completion of the appeal by designating the defendant as the appointed party, and the claim of the above loans to the defendant of the military Saemaul Bank was extinguished by the statute of limitations, the plaintiff at the trial.