beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나22331

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. If the service of a copy of a complaint as to whether a subsequent appeal is lawful, and the original copy, etc. of the judgment was made by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, may file an appeal after subsequent completion within two weeks after

The facts that the court of first instance received the original copy of the judgment on March 8, 2017, and submitted the instant petition for appeal on the 15th of the same month after the Defendant received the original copy of the judgment by public notice. The facts that the Defendant submitted the instant petition for appeal on the 10th of the same month are significant or apparent in the record at this court.

Thus, the defendant was sentenced to a judgment of the first instance court without knowing the fact that the lawsuit of this case was pending at the beginning, and the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by means of service by public notice, and the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment of the first instance court without negligence. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within 2 weeks from the date on which the court of first instance became aware of the fact that

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the appeal of this case is unlawful, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The facts of recognition (1) The plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent, C is the plaintiff's wife, and the defendant is a licensed real estate agent.

In fact, the defendant C is the case from the E around December 2006 to the above land of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the above land below its ground.