(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.05.13 2019나4973 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2020.05.13 2019나4973

사해행위취소

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. Determination on the legality of the subsequent appeal

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not receive a statement about the complaint from the wife F, and that the original copy of the judgment was served by service by public notice and was not aware of the fact that the judgment was pronounced, so the defendant failed to observe the appeal period due to the reasons not attributable to the defendant, and thus, the appeal of this case was lawful.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party cannot be held liable” refers to a reason for failure to comply with the period, even though the party fulfilled generally required care for conducting the said litigation. In a case where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of public notice, the parties are obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the first delivery of a copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. Thus, if a party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the parties are attributable to any reason

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s judgment was rendered on April 5, 2019, on the following grounds: (i) the copy of the instant complaint filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant was received by her wife F while living together with the Defendant’s domicile around December 24, 2018; (ii) the Defendant did not submit a written response; and (iii) the first instance court served a notice of the sentencing date on the Defendant’s domicile; and (iv) the Defendant was served on February 22, 2019; and (v) the first instance court served the notice of the sentencing date on the Defendant’s domicile; (v) the subsequent notice of the pronouncement date was revoked; but (v) the first instance court served the notice of the sentencing date on the Defendant’s domicile at the Defendant’s domicile but was unable to serve it due to the absence of a written response.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 10. 11. 선고 2012다44730 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.09 2020나23317

-춘천지방법원 2020.12.10 2019나1033

-대구지방법원 2018.03.14 2017나10624

-수원지방법원 2018.05.08 2017나13240

-부산지방법원 2015.11.18 2015나42664