본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.25 2014나25213

1. The appeal of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal



1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the court.

1) On April 27, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a check payment with the Seoul Central District Court, and the Defendant was not served with a duplicate, etc. of the complaint, and the court of first instance served the Defendant on July 26, 2007 by means of service by public notice. 2) On August 23, 2007, the court of first instance sentenced the Defendant to the same judgment on the day following the closure of pleadings on August 23, 2007. On August 27, 2007, the original copy of the judgment was served to the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and its service took effect on August 28, 2007.

3) On March 16, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an application against the Defendant for an explanation of property with the Seoul Central District Court 201Kao2044, the title of the judgment of the first instance court as to March 16, 201. On April 4, 2011, the said court rendered a decision to specify the property, and the original copy was served on the Defendant on April 8, 2011. The Defendant was present on the date of specification of property on June 13, 2011 and made an oath of preparing and submitting the list of property. Since the Defendant failed to perform his/her obligation pursuant to the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff filed an application for the entry of the defaulters’s list with the Seoul Central District Court 201Kao8546, August 11, 2011, and the said court served the Defendant a written examination on August 30, 2011, and the written examination was copied to the Defendant on September 4, 2011).

5) On April 30, 2014, the Defendant’s attorney filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of first instance on April 30, 2014. (B) In order to recognize a subsequent completion appeal pursuant to Article 173 of the Civil Procedure Act as lawful, the parties could not have complied with the peremptory period of the appeal due to any cause not attributable to them, and filed an appeal within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist. The first instance judgment is based on service by public notice.