logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.11.13 2017나7055
근저당권말소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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. The facts in fact of recognition are clear or obvious to this court in the records.

On December 6, 2016, pursuant to Article 117(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, the court of the first instance ordered the Plaintiff to deposit KRW 5,175,000 (hereinafter “instant decision”) with the Plaintiff within seven days from receipt of the notification of this order as a security for the costs of lawsuit (hereinafter “instant decision”).

B. On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff did not file an immediate appeal after receiving the instant decision, and the said decision became final and conclusive as it is.

However, the Plaintiff did not provide a security pursuant to the instant decision, as well as the period of providing security under the instant decision, until the court of first instance rendered a judgment.

C. Accordingly, the court of first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the instant lawsuit without holding any pleadings pursuant to the main sentence of Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, but has not yet been offered security following the decision of this case.

2. Where it is deemed necessary to provide a security for litigation costs, such as when a claim based on a written complaint for judgment and other records of trial is clearly groundless, the court may order the plaintiff to provide a security for litigation costs (Article 117(2) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act). If the plaintiff fails to provide such security within the period for providing the security, the court may dismiss the lawsuit by judgment without holding any pleadings (main sentence of Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact that the plaintiff did not provide such security within the period for providing the security is as seen earlier, and therefore, the judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the lawsuit in

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow