(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.10.21 2015나302978

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) 대구지방법원 2015.10.21 2015나302978

손해배상(산)

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. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On December 15, 2015, the court of the first instance served the Defendant’s domicile, “Seoul Northern-gu H, 102 Dong 101 (hereinafter “instant domicile”) with a duplicate of the complaint and a written guidance of the lawsuit, which was the Defendant’s domicile, and the Defendant’s child I received as the Defendant’s cohabitant on December 22, 201.

B. On February 10, 2015, the Defendant did not submit a written reply, and the court of first instance did not designate a date for pronouncement of a judgment without pleading and served a written notice of pronouncement on the date of adjudication at the domicile of the instant case but was unable to be served on the grounds of “influence in writing,” and on February 10, 2015, sent the notice of the date for pronouncement to the Defendant

C. On February 12, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment that fully accepts the Plaintiff’s claim, and on the same day and the same year.

2. 27. Each service of the original judgment to the domicile of the instant case was made, and all service was not made due to the absence of closure, in the same year.

3. On the 26th of the same month, the service of the original copy of the judgment by public notice was made to the defendant on the 26th of the same month.

The defendant was issued an original copy of the judgment of the first instance court on May 7, 2015, and the same month.

8. Ad hoc appeal was filed.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. In a case where a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint were served by service by public notice, barring special circumstances, the defendant was not aware 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.

may file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after the cause has ceased to exist.

However, if the defendant knew of the filing of a lawsuit and neglected it and served by public notice, the judgment was served by public notice.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.11.05 2015나2998

-서울동부지방법원 2015.11.20 2015나2593

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.15 2017나61913

-울산지방법원 2016.06.22 2015나3808

-울산지방법원 2016.06.01 2015나2140