(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.24 2014나34583

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.24 2014나34583

배분금

Text

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

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served 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 was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when he/she read

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant on October 24, 2013 after serving a copy of the complaint and notice of date for pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and served on the defendant by public notice on November 1, 2013. The original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant on the defendant by public notice on November 1, 2013. The defendant filed an appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment in this case on June 24, 2014 after receiving the original copy of the judgment from the court of first instance from the court of first instance on June 16, 2014. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was unaware of the delivery of the judgment in the first instance without negligence until June 16, 2014, and that it was impossible to observe the period for appeal due to any cause not attributable to him. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks thereafter is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. The inheritance-related one net G died on May 21, 2006.

참조판례

-대법원 2013. 1. 10. 선고 2010다75044,75051 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2021.04.08 2020나73020

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.17 2015나15381

-서울동부지방법원 2020.02.14 2018나3757

-서울동부지방법원 2020.01.31 2019나23413