logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.06.08 2016나9955
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. If a copy of a complaint as to the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal and the original of the judgment were served 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 is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion 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 means of service 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. Barring any special circumstances, 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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005 Decided February 24, 2006. According to the records of this case, the court of first instance may acknowledge the fact that the defendant was issued the original copy of the judgment on August 26, 2016, and the defendant filed the instant appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment on July 6, 2016, after the court of first instance served each by means of service, such as a duplicate of the complaint against the defendant, a notice of the date of pleading, etc. against the defendant by public notice.

Unless there is any evidence to deem that the Defendant had already known the fact that the judgment was rendered by the first instance court and that the judgment was served by public notice prior to being issued the original copy of the judgment, the Defendant was unable to observe the peremptory appeal period, by failing to know the progress and outcome of the instant lawsuit due to any cause not attributable to himself/herself.

arrow