logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.07 2015나32294
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware 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/her, and thus, he/she may file an appeal to correct it within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist.

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 rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. Thus, barring any 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 he/she read

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

According to the records of this case, the court of first instance sentenced the defendant to the judgment of the court of first instance on March 11, 2015 after serving a copy of the complaint and notice of the date for pleading, etc. on the defendant by public notice, and served the original copy of the judgment on March 27, 2015 on the defendant by public notice. The defendant was aware that the judgment of first instance was served by public notice only after receiving the original copy of the judgment at the court of first instance around June 1, 2015. The defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion of the judgment of the court of first instance on June 8, 2015. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period of appeal of this case is due to any cause not attributable to the defendant, and thus, the appeal of this case was filed within two weeks from the time the defendant knew that the judgment of first instance was served by public notice.

arrow