(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.22 2016나1081 | 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) 대구지방법원 2016.09.22 2016나1081

양수금

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed Party B are networked to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. If a copy of the complaint, original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, barring any special circumstance. 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, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received a new original of the judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006. According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on May 8, 2014 after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, notice of the date of pleading, etc. by public notice, with respect to the Defendant, and then serving the Defendant by means of service on May 17, 2014.

Unless there is any evidence to deem that the Defendant himself/herself or his/her attorney had already known the fact that the judgment of the first instance was rendered and that the judgment was served by means of service by public notice was served prior to January 19, 2016, the instant subsequent appeal was filed, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, by failing to know the progress and outcome of the instant lawsuit due to any cause not attributable to himself/herself.

As to this, the plaintiff talks that it is difficult for the defendant to make a phone call to the plaintiff on July 2014.

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.02.14 2018나3757

-수원지방법원 2016.11.04 2015나30869

-수원지방법원 2016.11.11 2016나9534

-수원지방법원 2016.10.07 2016나4584