채무부존재확인
1. The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful
(a) Facts below the facts of recognition are clear of records;
1) On May 18, 2015, the Defendant served the Plaintiff’s complaint with respect to the first instance case, and appointed the law firm E as a litigation representative on June 17, 2015, and delegated the authority regarding the filing of an appeal to the law firm. 2) The law firm E appointed the law firm F as a sub-agent on November 30, 2015. On December 1, 2015, the sub-agent F of an action was additionally designated as the attorney-at-law G on December 1, 2015.
3) On June 22, 2016, the court of first instance served a notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant’s legal representative on the electronic delivery of the notice of the date of pleading, and on June 22, 2016, upon closing the pleadings, the court notified the date of adjudication to the effect that “the date of August 17, 2016” was “F Attorney G was present at the court of first instance on August 17, 2016.” The court of first instance rendered a judgment on August 17, 2016. The original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant legal representative by electronic delivery, but the Defendant legal representative did not confirm within one week from the date of notification of the entry of the original copy of the judgment, and was deemed to have arrived at the time of August 26, 2016.
5. On October 18, 2016, following the expiration of the period for filing an appeal, the Defendant appellate court filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the appeal at the court of first instance.
B. The Defendant’s allegation that the Defendant’s attorney at the first instance trial was subject to compulsory execution, and the case management was not performed at the time of the closing of argument. As such, the Defendant’s attorney failed to know the sentencing date due to his/her failure to appear at the date of closing of argument. As such, the Defendant’s appeal period was forgotten with the wind that the attorney was unable to verify the delivery of the judgment,
This constitutes a case where the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him, and the defendant read the first instance judgment only on October 12, 2016, and two weeks from that time.