logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.06.12 2018나68219
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

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) The Plaintiff appeared at the first instance court on September 6, 2018 at the first instance court, and was notified on September 20, 2018 by the date of adjudication. 2) The court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on September 20, 2018, and the original copy of the judgment received the Plaintiff’s claim on October 1, 2018 by C.

3) On October 18, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted the instant written appeal to the first instance judgment against the instant judgment. (B) Determination 1) “Grounds for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the grounds for failing to comply with the period despite the party’s due care to conduct litigation, although the party had to do so. If the party fails to investigate the progress of litigation and fails to observe the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party was due to any grounds for not being held liable to the party.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 11, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). 2, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on his/her own, and was notified by the date the judgment was rendered, and the Plaintiff was obligated to investigate the progress of the instant lawsuit, but did not confirm the progress of the lawsuit

Therefore, the appeal of this case is unlawful, since it does not constitute a case where the plaintiff could not observe the period of appeal due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal of the subsequent completion of the case is unlawful, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow