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. In the first instance court’s determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, all litigation documents, such as a copy of complaint against the defendant and a notice of date for pleading, were served by public notice, and pleadings have been proceeded with. On January 24, 2017, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered, and the original copy of the judgment in the first instance was also served on the defendant by public notice. The defendant applied for perusal and duplication on February 25, 2019, while the defendant was not aware of the facts of the lawsuit in this case and the judgment in the first instance, and perused the records of the judgment.

3. 6. The fact that an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment was filed on March 6, 2019, knowing that the judgment was rendered by obtaining an original copy of the judgment, can be acknowledged either by the court or by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings.

In such a case, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period, due to failure to know the progress and result of the lawsuit in this case due to a cause not attributable to himself. Therefore, the subsequent appeal in this case filed within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, on August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant on the due date on February 1, 2013, and the interest rate of KRW 400,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should pay the Plaintiff the above loan of KRW 10,000,000 and the agreed interest thereon, and that the Defendant received KRW 10,000,000 borrowed from the lending company on August 1, 2012 and subsequently repaid the loan in the name of KRW C, and that the Plaintiff did not borrow KRW 10,00,000 from the Plaintiff on the grounds that there was no separate form with the Plaintiff.

B. Considering the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence) and Nos. 2 through 5, the obligee column includes the Plaintiff’s name and resident registration number in the obligor column, and the Defendant’s name and resident registration number in the obligor column. The main text of the judgment “the Defendant’s maturity period of KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on August 1, 2012” is as follows.