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 the same day after the court of first instance becomes aware of the fact that the court of first instance was served by service by public notice upon ex officio whether the appeal for subsequent completion is lawful, and the fact that the court of first instance filed the appeal of this case is significant in this court on February 7, 2017 after the defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records of the court of first instance on February 7, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant could not comply with the peremptory appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to himself, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist, so the defendant's appeal for subsequent completion of appeal is lawful.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 2 million to the Defendant on February 29, 2016, as to the cause of the claim, has no dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserts that the above 2 million won is a loan, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff will accept the defendant's business and paid the down payment.

On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a message to the Defendant that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to accept the Defendant’s business partner on March 31, 2016, when considering the overall purport of the pleadings, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the loan of KRW 2 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, in light of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in subparagraph 4, the Plaintiff sent a message that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to receive the Defendant’s business partner and returned KRW 2 million following the following day, and the Plaintiff also sent a message that it is recognized that there was discussions on the issue of accepting the Defendant’s business partner between the Defendant and the Defendant around the time of deposit of KRW 2 million, it appears that the Plaintiff decided to accept the Defendant’s business partner and paid it to the Defendant as part of the acquisition amount.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this.