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

1. According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that fully accepts the plaintiffs' claims on April 29, 2016 after delivering a copy of the complaint against the defendant, a notice of the date of pleading, etc. to the defendant by public notice, and the pleading was conducted. The original of the judgment was served on the defendant by public notice, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time, and the defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was rendered only on March 6, 2017, and the defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on March 15, 2017.

According to the above facts, the defendant could not be able to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory period, because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself. Therefore, the appeal filed within two weeks from the time the defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice was served by public notice is a lawful appeal that was filed within the lawful period of appeal and

2. Basic facts

A. On December 24, 2013, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a certificate of borrowing that the Plaintiff lent KRW 140,000,000 to the Defendant at an interest rate of KRW 36% per annum (36% per annum) and the due date on February 23, 2014 (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing”). The Defendant’s seal impression is affixed to the Defendant’s name attached to the certificate of borrowing.

B. On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which is the maximum debt amount of 182,00,000, based on the contract on December 24, 2013, with respect to a building with C large-scale 221.7 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis with a total of KRW 140 million due to the contract on December 24, 2013 regarding 410 and 402 among the above-ground buildings.

C. The Plaintiff stated that “the Defendant’s consent should be obtained when leasing or leasing the above ground buildings to another person.”