1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. The fact that the court of first instance rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, a notice of date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and then serving the Defendant by public notice, the original copy of the judgment of the first instance also served on the Defendant by public notice, and the fact that the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on October 4, 2015 after becoming aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was rendered on October 22, 2015 is obvious.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the court of first instance filed a subsequent appeal within 2 weeks from October 22, 2015, which became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s determination on the claim for the payment of goods is the merchant who manufactured and sold the c’s c’ in the name of “C”, and the Defendant is the merchant who was supplied goods from the Plaintiff in the name of “D”, and the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the c’s c’s c’s c’s c’s c’s c’s c’ from June 201 to January 2013, and the fact that the c’s c’s c’s c’s c’s c’s c’s c’s c’s c’

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 10,657,575 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages is as follows: (a) even though the Plaintiff was ordered by the Defendant’s goods and manufactured the training penalty amounting to KRW 52,99,00 with the intent to supply it to the Defendant; (b) and (c) whether the training penalty amounting to KRW 2,955,00 was charged with selling the goods (hereinafter “the instant goods”).

The defendant did not receive it. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the total amount of KRW 5,554,00,000 for the goods of this case. Thus, the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for the damages equivalent to the above amount.