logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.08.21 2019나1043
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendants are the defendants.

Reasons

1. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

(a) The following facts are apparent in the records of recognition:

1) On October 22, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint to the court of first instance on October 22, 2018, and submitted to the court of first instance a report on the place of service as “D buildings and E, the place of service and the place of service being received.” 2) Each response submitted by the Defendants, including a duplicate of each response, the order to rectify the address of the court of first instance, the notice on the date of pleading, etc., submitted by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and all employees of the recipient of the service were received.

3) On January 8, 2019, the Plaintiff appeared at the first date for pleading of the first instance court, and was notified on January 22, 2019, the first instance court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 22, 2019. The original copy of the judgment was served to the service place reported by the Plaintiff and received G employee of F, who was served on January 30, 2019.

4) On February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant written appeal for the subsequent completion of the judgment of the first instance. (B) The term “reasons for which a party is not liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the grounds for failing to comply with the given period despite the party’s due care to conduct procedural acts. If the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to comply with the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party’s failure to comply with the peremptory period is due to a cause not attributable to the party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da44730 Decided October 11, 2012, etc.). 2 The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the Plaintiff himself/herself was unable to receive the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court, was served on his/her employee, and the Plaintiff was unaware of the details of the judgment of the first instance that was sentenced to dismissal due to his/her neglect of work, etc., the Plaintiff was unable to comply with the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff voluntarily brought the instant lawsuit.

arrow