(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.02.14 2018나2197 | 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) 청주지방법원 2019.02.14 2018나2197

대여금

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. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant did not receive a notification of the date of pleading and an authentic copy of the judgment from the court of first instance, and that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the court of first instance was issued a judgment by the same day after compulsory execution based on the judgment of the court of first instance around November 14, 2014. Thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion is lawful.

B. In a case where a party to the relevant legal doctrine was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the procedural acts by negligence within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist (main sentence of Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The term “reasons not attributable to the party” refers to the grounds for failure to comply with the period despite the party’s due care to perform the procedural acts despite being generally required. In a case where documents of lawsuit are unable to be served by means of service due to an ordinary method during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the first delivery of a copy of the complaint is different from the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the failure to investigate the progress of the lawsuit, it cannot be said that the party cannot be said to be attributable to the party, and further, the circumstance that the party failed to observe the period of appeal due to the failure

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da103394 Decided March 28, 2013). However, where an obligor raises a lawful objection against a payment order, the obligee’s filing of a request for a payment order shall be deemed as immediately filing a lawsuit regarding the value of the purpose of the claim against which the objection was raised at the time of filing a request for a payment order (Article 472(2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and filing an objection against

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

-민사소송법 제472조 제2항

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.10.27 2015나26462

-대구지방법원 2016.11.17 2016나5045

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나78327

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.09 2017나77109

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.24 2016나75649