beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.04 2018나1046

공사대금

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. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist.” Here, “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to the reason why the party was unable to comply with the period, even though the party performed his/her duty of care generally required for conducting the litigation.

However, in a case where the original judgment was served on the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without fault. If the Defendant was sentenced from the beginning without knowing the continuation of a lawsuit and the Defendant became aware of such fact only after the original judgment was served to the Defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory period for filing an appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Defendant.

(2) On April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order (2016 tea972) against the Defendant with the Dong Branch of Busan District Court on April 28, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da27195, Nov. 10, 2005). The court served the original copy of the payment order and the instruction for demanding procedure as the Defendant’s domicile, but the above court served the original copy of the payment order and the instruction for demanding procedure as the Defendant’s domicile, but it was sent to the litigation on August 17, 2016 because the application for payment order was not served on the Defendant due to the absence of closure, and as the copy of the complaint of this case against the Defendant was not served as the absence of closure, the court of first instance declared the Plaintiff to accept the Plaintiff’s claim on October 25, 2016 by serving the notice of the date of pleading and the date of pleading by public notice.