logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.04.23 2014나42957
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. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act on the lawfulness of Defendant’s appeal refers to “reasons for which a party is not liable” refers to the grounds for failure to observe the period despite the party’s due care to perform the procedural acts. 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 parties are obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit by public notice from the first copy of the complaint to the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice. Thus, if the parties fail to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be deemed as due to a cause for which the party is not responsible, and further, the circumstance that the parties failed to observe the period of appeal due to the failure to know of the pronouncement and service of the judgment and the fact that the court was not negligent by failing to observe the period of appeal should be

(1) According to the records, a copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to B, who was residing together with the Defendant, on January 15, 2013, the Defendant’s domicile at the time when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was delivered to B, who was residing together with the Defendant. The court of first instance, the court of first instance, on March 14, 2013, designated the date for rendering a judgment without pleading and sent a notice of pronouncement of pleading to the above address on February 28, 2013, on March 13, 2013, on which the notice of pronouncement of pleading was sent to the above address on March 13, 2013, but was not sent as a closed answer, and the court of first instance, on March 14, 2013, declared that all Plaintiff’s claims were accepted on March 14, 2013, and did not serve the original copy by public notice as the original copy by public notice again on March 21, 2013.

arrow