logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.07 2015나44716 (1)
보험금
Text

1. The following part of the claim of the judgment of the court of first instance:

against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid under this subsection.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had a duty to investigate the progress of the instant lawsuit, which was implemented due to the failure of mediation, since the Defendant lawfully served a duplicate of the written application for mediation and participated in the conciliation procedure in the civil conciliation case applied by the Plaintiff

However, since the defendant neglected the above investigation duty and failed to observe the appeal period, it cannot be viewed that it was due to any cause not attributable to the party. Thus, the defendant's appeal of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for civil conciliation with the Defendant. On October 9, 2012, a duplicate of the written application for conciliation was served as “D, 301 Sii-si,” and the Defendant received it.

B) On November 13, 2012, the Defendant appeared at the second date of conciliation but failed to mediate, and accordingly, the conciliation case was implemented. The court of first instance rendered a notice on May 10, 2013, and on June 3, 2013, a written application for modification of the purport and cause thereof (ordinary delivery) to the above address, but is not served on the Defendant due to “the addressee’s unknown address.” As such, on June 14, 2013, the Defendant sent the notice on the date of pleading, the written application for modification of the purport and cause thereof by registered mail, and on June 20, 2013, the Defendant did not serve the Defendant as “the addressee’s unknown address,” but did not serve the original copy by means of registered mail on July 22, 2013, the court rendered the said judgment to the Defendant on July 21, 2013, which was not served on the Plaintiff’s address (hereinafter “the above judgment was served on July 213, 2013.

arrow