(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.30 2017나727

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.30 2017나727

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any 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” means the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though he/she performed the duty of care generally required for conducting the litigation.

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records of this case, the court of first instance may recognize the fact that the defendant served a copy of the complaint and the date of pleading on November 18, 2016, and served a notice of the date of pleading on the defendant by public notice, and served the defendant with a copy of the complaint and the date of pleading on November 19, 2016, and served the original copy of the judgment to the defendant by public notice on November 19, 2016, and the defendant served the seizure and collection order (2016TTT) based on the judgment of first instance on December 16, 2016, and became aware of the fact that the first instance judgment was pronounced, and filed the appeal of this case on December 21, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case was served by public notice by the first instance court.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 11. 10. 선고 2005다27195 판결

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2020.04.29 2019나10699

-부산지방법원 2020.04.24 2018나42962

-수원지방법원 2018.10.11 2017나86668

-제주지방법원 2018.03.28 2017나1059

-제주지방법원 2018.04.04 2016나2444