beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.10 2017나7047

물품대금 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

(a)The following facts are recognized by records or are remarkable in this Court:

1) On May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for a payment order with Suwon District Court 2016 tea1492, and the payment order was issued on June 7, 2016. Accordingly, the Defendant filed an objection against the objection and the instant case was proceeded with as Suwon District Court 2016Gaso25867. 2) The first instance court issued a ruling of recommending reconciliation on August 10, 2016. The Defendant filed an objection against the said ruling of recommending reconciliation on August 23, 2016, and submitted a written answer on November 3, 2016. D, the co-representative of the Defendant, who is the co-representative of the Defendant, was present on the first date for pleading opened on the same day, but did not present himself/herself, but did not present himself/herself.

3) On November 24, 2016, the first instance court proceeded on the date for the second pleading, and concluded the pleading on the same day, and notified that the date for pronouncement was December 22, 2016. D appeared on the said date for the first instance court’s pleading and stated the written objection as of June 20, 2016, the written objection as of August 23, 2016, and the written response as of November 3, 2016, respectively. 4) sentenced the first instance court’s judgment as of December 22, 2016. On December 26, 2016, the original copy of the first instance judgment was served on the Defendant, but is not served as a closed text, and on January 13, 2016, the original copy of the first instance judgment was served by public notice as of December 13, 2017.

5) On April 19, 2017, the Defendant submitted a written appeal for subsequent completion to the first instance court. (B) As to the subsequent completion of procedural acts, Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “if a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts in his/her negligence within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In such cases, “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to “reasons not attributable to him/her,” even though the party has paid due attention to do the procedural acts, he/she may observe the period.