beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.30 2015나43485

양수금

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 defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful

A. Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the service of the original copy of the judgment in the first instance is null and void, an appellant of the relevant regulations and legal principles must file an appeal within two weeks from the date when the original copy of the judgment was served

(Article 396 of the Civil Procedure Act). If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him, he may supplement the procedural acts neglected within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.

(Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reason why the party could not comply with the period despite the party’s due diligence to conduct the procedural acts.

In case where documents of lawsuit are served by public notice as it is impossible to serve documents of lawsuit in a normal way during the course of lawsuit, the documents of lawsuit shall be served by public notice from the service of the original copy of complaint to the case where the lawsuit is pending by public notice, and the parties are obliged

Therefore, if a party fails to comply with the peremptory period due to a failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the party is due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

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

Judgment

According to the above legal principles and records clearly acknowledged as follows, the defendant raised an objection by directly delivering the original copy of the instant payment order, and as such, the court of first instance was directly served with documentary evidence in the litigation proceedings commenced with the above objection, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant failed to observe the peremptory period, because he was aware of the progress of the lawsuit, and did not investigate the progress of the lawsuit

As such, it is the wind that the original copy of the judgment is served by service by public notice during the process of the lawsuit.