logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.06.03 2019나4475
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff succeeding intervenor KRW 2,036,821.

Reasons

1. If a copy of a complaint, an original copy, etc. of the judgment were served by 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 is unable to comply with the peremptory term 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 (30 days where the cause ceases to exist in a foreign country at the time the cause ceases to exist) after the cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served 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 circumstance, the defendant becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s judgment was rendered on September 12, 2014, and the original judgment was delivered to the Defendant on September 12, 2014, based on the following: (a) in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant, without negligence, filed an application for the issuance of the original judgment with the first instance court on April 25, 2019, and received the original report by service by publication; and (b) the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal on May 1, 2019, and the fact that the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal on May 1, 2019. According to the above facts acknowledged, according to the first instance court’s judgment, the Defendant could not be held liable for failing to inform the Defendant of the fact that the first instance court was served.

arrow