Unlawful service of judgment and duty of care of parties

Even if a judgment of the court of first instance was served on a person unrelated to the defendant, it can be confirmed that the above judgment of the court of first instance was declared when the defendant received a certified copy of the correction of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the defendant has a duty of care generally expected under the Civil Procedure Act, which shall be made to identify the sentence and its contents within the shortest possible time and make efforts to decide whether to appeal

Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] 4286 Guide191 decided March 16, 1954 (Article 160(1) 204 of the Civil Procedure Act, 5547)

Plaintiff

Many Passenger Transport

Busan District Court Decision 4292 Masan33 delivered on April 1, 201

This case shall be dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The plaintiff's legal representative is dismissed. The plaintiff's legal representative is dismissed. The plaintiff's legal representative is also subject to the judgment of the Dong branch of the order. The plaintiff's legal representative's factual statement is inappropriate since the defendant et al. submitted the indictment with an excessive peremptory period for institution of public prosecution. The defendant et al. asserted in the defendant et al., and even though the original copy of the judgment of the court below was imposed on the ground that the defendant et al. was not legally served on the defendant et al. on July 2, 4292, the original copy of the decision of the court below was delivered to the defendant et al. on the short-term 2, 4292. Thus, it can be known that the defendant et al. presented a notice of the judgment of the court below to the same person after the day on July 16, 4292. Thus, it is also inappropriate to dismiss this case's legal procedure, and the defendant's legal representative is not allowed to pay the fees for the plaintiff's legal representative and the defendant's legal representative.

In the case of the defendant, etc., it is true that the defendant, etc. has attempted the period of prosecution against the judgment of the court below. However, the judgment of the court below did not serve on the attorney delegated by the defendant, etc. and served on another person unrelated to the defendant company, etc., and thus failing to observe the peremptory period of prosecution is the result of a cause not attributable to the defendant company, etc., and the judgment of the court below was made on July 10, 4292. Thus, the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period of prosecution is a result of a cause not attributable to the defendant company, etc., and the judgment of the court below was made on July 10, 4292. As the plaintiff's answer to the merits, this site is owned by the plaintiff, among the facts alleged in the plaintiff's assertion, the fact that the defendant, etc. occupies from the date of the plaintiff's principal, and used the building as alleged in the plaintiff's claim for construction expenses, and thus, the defendant, etc.'s use of the building site was forced to move to the building, and paid for rent for the plaintiff No.

As evidence method, the plaintiff submitted Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 5, and 3-2, and invoked the testimony of non-party 2 and 3, and the defendant et al. used the testimony of non-party 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as well as the result of the appraisal and verification by non-party 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 5 is the time when the co-existence of evidence No. 4 and 15 was established, and it is time to establish Gap evidence.

First, it can be seen that the original copy of the judgment of the court below can be delivered to the non-party 6 unrelated to the defendant company by the testimony of the non-party 5 and 6, and the defendant company cannot comply with the peremptory period for public prosecution due to the non-party 1 and 2's non-party 3-1 and 2's testimony and testimony of the non-party 3 and 4 that the court below did not know about the fact that the judgment was delivered to the non-party 9 on July 2, 4292 (the date of receipt of the original copy of the judgment correction), so it can be seen that the defendant company cannot be seen that the non-party 6 was unable to observe the peremptory period for public prosecution due to the non-party 5's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party -party 2's new opinion.

Judges Kang Jung-hee (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)