logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.12.18 2019나61229
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. If a copy of the complaint on the legitimacy of the defendant's appeal and the original copy of the judgment were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. Thus, in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him.

(2) A subsequent appeal may be filed within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist.

Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act in the case of service by public notice by the court of first instance means that the defendant does not know the fact that the reason ceases to exist, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, it should be deemed that the defendant knew that the judgment was served by public notice only when the defendant read the records of the case or received the original judgment by public notice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da20410 Decided October 24, 1997). The first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on January 7, 2015 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant by means of public notice, notification of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant, and proceeding for pleadings. The original copy of the judgment was served on the Defendant by means of public notice on January 14, 2015. The Defendant was notified that the Defendant’s deposit claim against C Bank was seized on March 5, 2019 and became aware that the first instance judgment was served by public notice around that time. The fact that the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal on March 19, 2019 is apparent in records.

Therefore, the defendant could not comply with the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to a cause not attributable to him, so the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date on which the court of first instance became aware of the service by public notice is lawful.

2. Summary of both parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is asserted as follows.

arrow