1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On May 22, 2019, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on the lawfulness of the Defendant’s appeal, where both a duplicate of the instant complaint and a notice of the date of pleading, etc. against the Defendant were served by public notice, and the pleadings have been progress on May 22, 2019. The original copy of the first instance judgment also served on the Defendant on May 28, 2019 by public notice, and the fact that the Defendant filed the instant appeal on October 2, 2019 with the knowledge that the first instance judgment was pronounced on September 25, 2019, is obvious or obvious to this court.

In such a case, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was unable to file an appeal, which is a peremptory period, due to failure to know the progress, result, etc. of the instant lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion of the case is legitimate.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff supplied agricultural products, etc. to the Defendant by June 2013, and the amount of KRW 3,141,970 remains. On December 27, 2018, the Plaintiff received KRW 200,000 from the Defendant and then there remains KRW 2,941,970. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,941,970 and its delay damages. (2) The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion is limited to the Defendant’s business, and there is no attempted payment after settling the Plaintiff’s total amount of the amount of attempted money

Even if there are claims for attempted proceeds as alleged by the plaintiff, the extinctive prescription has already expired.

B. Determination 1 as to the cause of the claim 1) The Plaintiff, a company aimed at agricultural products distribution business or wholesale and retail business of agricultural products, etc., supplied agricultural products, etc. to the Defendant by August 31, 2012. Accordingly, the price for the attempted goods as of June 5, 2013 is KRW 3,141,970 (the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant supplied agricultural products, etc. to the Defendant by June 2013, but according to the statement under subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied agricultural products, etc. to the Defendant.