logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.16 2016나2054696
기타(금전)
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. Whether the appeal of this case is lawful

A. An appeal as to whether the period for appeal is complied with shall be filed within two weeks from the date on which the written judgment of the first instance is served, and the above period is a peremptory term (Article 396 of the Civil Procedure Act). As such, an appeal filed after the above period for appeal expires is unlawful because it

According to the records of this case, after the court of first instance sentenced the judgment on September 4, 2015, it served the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance to the law firm Lee, the defendant's legal representative (in light of the process of the lawsuit in this case, the process of the lawsuit in this case, the time of appointment of the legal representative and the progress thereof, etc., it is not deemed that the above legal representative was represented by the defendant without any authority). The above legal representative was served on September 9, 2015, and the defendant submitted a petition of appeal to the court of first instance on August 2, 2016.

According to the above facts, barring any other circumstance, the defendant's appeal is unlawful because it has been filed after the expiration of the appeal period, and it does not meet the requirements for appeal.

B. As to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal, the Defendant asserted in the first instance court that delegated a legal representative to an attorney-at-law. Since the said legal representative did not inform the Defendant of the progress of the trial and the fact of sentencing, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the judgment of the first instance court was rendered only after being served with the original copy of the decision to commence a compulsory auction on real estate owned by the Defendant, and thereafter, filed an appeal to seek a change of the judgment of the first instance court.

As such, the defendant could not observe the appeal period without fault of the defendant, the defendant's appeal is stipulated in Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act.

arrow