(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.04.10 2019나9351 | 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) 수원지방법원 2020.04.10 2019나9351

양수금

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. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2002, the bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the outstanding amount under the Seoul Central District Court 2002Gadan294268.

B. On January 22, 2003, the above court rendered a judgment that "the defendant shall pay to E the amount of KRW 84,895,677 and KRW 53,65,065, which shall be calculated at the rate of 19% per annum from October 12, 2000 to November 5, 2002, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment" (hereinafter "the previous judgment of this case"). The previous judgment of this case was finalized on February 20, 203.

C. On January 10, 201, E transferred to the Plaintiff all bonds according to the previous judgment of this case (hereinafter “transfer of claims of this case”). D.

E on January 19, 2011, sent a content-certified mail notifying the Defendant of the assignment of the instant claim, which was not served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The plaintiff's assertion was known to the facts that the previous judgment and the lawsuit of this case were pending, and the defendant intentionally avoided the receipt of documents related to the trial by failing to report the change of address, and thus the appeal for subsequent completion is unlawful.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where a party could not observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. In this context, "reasons for which the party cannot be held liable" refers to the reasons why the party could not observe the period even though he/she fulfilled the duty of care to conduct the litigation, even though he/she had fulfilled the duty of care to do

If a copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint was served by public notice, barring special circumstances.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.04.06 2017누34768

-대구지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나8670

-부산고등법원 2017.07.12 2016누24243

-부산고등법원 2019.11.29 2019누23098

-서울고등법원 2017.12.15 2017누68631