logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.05 2018나22533
구상금
Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff against the defendant as to the above cancellation part.

Reasons

1. According to the records, the court of first instance, ex officio upon examining the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, may acknowledge the fact that the court served a copy of the complaint against the defendant and the notice of the date for pleading by public notice, and accepted the plaintiff's claim on November 30, 2017, and served the original copy of the judgment on December 2, 2017 to the defendant by public notice. The defendant was issued the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on March 28, 2018, and the defendant filed the appeal for subsequent completion on March 29, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal for the subsequent completion of the instant case was filed within two weeks from the date on which the Defendant became aware that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice, and is lawful by satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a fire insurance contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and DF buildings owned in Suwon-si E (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. 1) Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”).

(D) As to the steel-frame reinforcement work on the floor surface of the second parking lot on the ground of the instant building D and the instant building (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) Under the instant contract, B entered into the contact with the Defendant that he/she employs, around June 13, 2016, and around June 16, 2016.

C. 1) During the above work, a fire with a studio studs, etc., which was destroyed by a fire that was destroyed by a studio studs, etc. underground (hereinafter “instant fire”).

2) The fire of this case destroyed the 62,433,768 won and the 62,433,768 won and damages caused by the fire of this case.

3. At the time of B or the Defendant did not remove or prevent electric wires and other combustible materials on the first basements that may fall under the contact price. D.

The plaintiff paid insurance money on August 12, 2016.

arrow