beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.09.05 2017나2021006

구상금

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 the appeal is lawful after the subsequent completion of this case

A. The Defendant alleged that he was the representative director of the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “B”) and had been staying in the United States of America for business since the time when the Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit, and all of the copies of the instant complaint served as the company house of the Defendant’s domicile and the original copy of the first instance judgment were received by the guard staff.

At the time, however, most employees were absent from bankruptcy, and only the guard staff to preserve the company house in the state of withdrawal, but the guard staff did not deliver the above litigation documents to the defendant and neglected them as they were.

As above, the defendant raised the lawsuit in this case because it was not delivered with all the documents of this case, and was unaware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was pronounced and conclusive, and was later known and submitted a subsequent subsequent petition of appeal, so the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful.

B. The relevant legal doctrine’s appeal shall be filed within two weeks from the day on which the written judgment is served (main sentence of Article 396(1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and the period is a peremptory term.

(2) Paragraph (2) of the same Article: Provided, That where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, the litigation which he neglected within two weeks (30 days, if the said cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time when it ceases to exist) from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.

(Article 173(1) of the same Act. Here, the "reasons for which a party cannot be held liable" refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the time limit even though the party had exercised due diligence to do the procedural acts, and as regards such reasons, the party who intends to supplement the procedural acts must assert and prove it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012; 2016Da215356, Jul. 7, 2016). Meanwhile, service is, in principle, an address, residence, place of business, or place of business of a person who receives service.