(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.06.18 2019나41086

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) 서울서부지방법원 2020.06.18 2019나41086

사해행위취소

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. If a copy of the complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by public notice as to the legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, the appeal for subsequent completion may be filed within two weeks from the date such cause ceases

The "date on which the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered, and further the fact that the judgment was served by service by public notice is known.

In ordinary cases, only when a party or legal representative peruses the records of the case or receives a new original of the judgment, it shall be deemed that he/she became aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006). The judgment of the first instance was rendered after a copy of the complaint and the date for pleading, etc. were served by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment of the first instance was also served on the Defendant by public notice. The fact that the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for subsequent completion to the court of first instance on November 7, 2019 is apparent in the record. The Defendant perused the records of this case on October 30, 2019 and known the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period due to the failure of the court of first instance to know that the judgment was served by service by public notice without negligence.

Since the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal within 2 weeks from the time when he became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice, the instant subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an architect who operates the “F architect office” and is a non-party C (hereinafter referred to as “non-party C”).

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2020.06.04 2019나1767

-서울서부지방법원 2020.05.21 2019나42379

-서울서부지방법원 2020.12.03 2020나43941

-서울서부지방법원 2021.02.04 2020나44500

-서울서부지방법원 2020.11.05 2019나34477