(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.10.08 2019나4027 | 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 2020.10.08 2019나4027

손해배상(기)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal

(a)The facts below the facts of recognition are apparent in, or obvious to, the record;

1) On April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant and the co-defendant B of the first instance court. On May 21, 2015, the first instance court determined that the Defendant’s domicile was M apartment and Nho (hereinafter “instant domicile”).

2) On June 25, 2015, the Defendant’s reply to the effect that “the Defendant is merely the owner of a building that is not a contracting party and does not assume contractual responsibilities, so the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed” (hereinafter “instant reply”) was submitted to the first instance court on June 25, 2015.

3) The first instance court served the first written notice of the date of pleading on September 4, 2015 on the domicile of the instant case, and the result of the service indicated that O received it as the Defendant’s head or discount. 4) The first instance court served the Plaintiff’s written document as of October 1, 2015 and the second written notice of the date of pleading as of October 1, 2015, but all of them were impossible to serve due to the addressee’s unknown address, and served it by means of delivery on October 12 and 14, 2015.

5) On November 24, 2015, the first instance court sentenced the judgment of the first instance court. When the service of the original of the judgment against the Defendant was impossible due to the addressee’s unknown service, the service of the original of the judgment was made by means of service by public notice and became effective on December 17, 2015. 6) The Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for subsequent completion on September 9, 2019.

B. The defendant's assertion that he/she had resided in the defendant's spouse's domicile other than the domicile of this case during the court of first instance, and was not served with the documents related to the lawsuit, including the original copy of the court of first instance. Thus, the defendant was not aware of the fact that the court of first instance was

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.02.05 2014나2022909

-서울동부지방법원 2018.06.15 2017나27831

-울산지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나23762

-부산지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나3117