1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant is dismissed.

1. As to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on July 30, 2014 after serving a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendant, a notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and subsequently proceeding pleadings on July 30, 2014. The original copy of the judgment of first instance is also served on the Defendant on August 1, 2014 by public notice; the fact that the Defendant was aware of the judgment of first instance on November 2, 2018, and submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion on November 12, 2018 is recognized either by record or by the statement of evidence No. 2.

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 two weeks from November 2, 2018, which became aware of the fact that the court of first instance served by public notice was served by public notice. Thus, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, the Defendant offered to the Plaintiff that “if the Plaintiff pays money to the Defendant as the investment bond for an apartment, the Defendant would purchase the apartment with the said money and make a rise in the price of the apartment if the purchase of the apartment house was made, and then receive KRW 120 million from the Plaintiff on January 31, 2007, and thereafter, the Defendant agreed to return the amount of KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff on February 2012, that the Plaintiff would return the said KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff is not in dispute between the parties, or is recognized by the purport of each entry and pleading as stated in subparagraphs A and 5, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 120 million among the above KRW 50 million agreed by the Defendant and the co-defendant C, etc. of the first instance trial.

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 70 million out of the above agreed amount (=120 million - 50 million , and hereinafter the above amount) and damages for delay.