beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.09.07 2016나1971

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though he/she had exercised general duty to act in the course of litigation. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning, different from the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. Thus, if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is due to any reason for which the party cannot be held responsible.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). B.

According to the records, the first instance court: (a) served a copy of the complaint, the guide of lawsuit, etc. to “A building 301 at the window of Changwon-si,” which is the defendant’s domicile; and (b) served it at the above address on August 30, 2013, and submitted a written answer on October 11, 2013; and (c) thereafter, the first instance court issued a judgment on September 3, 2014, and served the original copy to the defendant to the above address, but it becomes impossible to serve the original copy due to the addressee’s uncertainty; (d) served the original copy of the judgment on the defendant on September 26, 2014 by means of service by public notice, and (e) served the original copy on the defendant on October 11, 2014; and (c) the defendant submitted the appeal of this case to the first instance court on March 15, 2016.

C. According to the above facts, the defendant received a copy, etc. of the complaint of this case lawfully and was aware of the fact that the litigation of this case was pending in the court of first instance, and thus the defendant should inquire about the progress of the lawsuit and its result, etc. by asking the court, etc., but the defendant did not properly perform it, so the original copy of the judgment is service by publication.