물품대금
1. The instant lawsuit was concluded on October 5, 2016 as deemed the withdrawal of the Defendant’s appeal.
2. After filing an application for designation of the date.
1. The facts below the facts of recognition are clear in the records. A.
The defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the case against the judgment of the first instance.
B. The Defendant and his/her legal representative had been absent from all the given notice of the date of pleading on the fourth date for pleading ( July 21, 2016) and the fifth date for pleading ( September 1, 2016).
C. The Plaintiff’s attorney was present at each of the above dates for pleading, but did not present all.
On October 11, 2016, the defendant applied for the designation of the date.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, pursuant to Articles 408 and 268 of the Civil Procedure Act, the instant lawsuit was deemed to have been withdrawn and terminated by the Defendant as of October 5, 2016 (on October 1, 2016, on Sundays and October 2, 2016, on Sundays, and on October 3, 2016, on October 11, 2016), one month has passed since the fifth date of pleading pursuant to Article 408 and Article 268 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the Defendant’s application for the designation of date as of October 11, 2016 was made only after the lapse of one month after both parties were absent, and thus, is null and void.
The Defendant did not appear on the date with the knowledge that the fifth date for pleading in the trial was presumed to have been presumed to wait for the result of the relevant case upon filing an application to designate a date on October 11, 2016. However, as seen earlier, the fact that the notice on the fifth date for pleading in the trial was lawfully served on the Defendant, the Defendant’s argument cannot be accepted since the first month, which is the period for filing an application to designate a date under Article 268(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, is not an peremptory term, and the subsequent completion of the application to designate a date under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act is not allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Ma175, Apr. 2
Although the Defendant asserts that this court designated ex officio the date for the sixth pleading ( November 10, 2016), the said date for pleading is merely designated by this court to determine whether the Defendant applied for the designation of the date on October 11, 2016, while disputing that the instant lawsuit was deemed to have been withdrawn by the Defendant. As such, Article 268 of the Civil Procedure Act is merely a fact that the instant lawsuit was filed by the Defendant.