(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.28 2018나64412

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.28 2018나64412

토지인도

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1.The following facts of recognition shall be apparent in the records or significant to this Court:

On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant. On April 27, 2017, the Defendant received a duplicate of the instant complaint from the Defendant through his/her wife AB, who was his/her domicile, Hanam-si, Hanam-si, 1309 Dong 1004.

B. The Defendant did not submit a written response within 30 days from the date of receiving the duplicate of the instant complaint, and the first instance court sent the notice of the date of pleading and the notice of the sentencing date to the Defendant’s address, but is not served due to the absence of closure, and served the said document by the method of delivery, and subsequently rendered a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on September 12, 2017.

C. Although the first instance court sent the original copy of the judgment of the first instance to the Defendant’s address, it was served on October 12, 2017 by means of service, and on October 27, 2017, the service became effective.

On May 11, 2018, the Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for the subsequent completion to two weeks from the date of entry into force.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “A party’s “reasons for which he/she is not liable” refers to a cause for which the party could not comply with the period, even though he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the litigation. In cases where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the delivery of a copy of the complaint was different from the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit from the beginning. Thus, 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’

Supreme Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on July 22, 2004

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나1694

-수원지방법원 2018.05.08 2017나13240

-광주지방법원 2019.04.24 2018나5108 (1)

-서울남부지방법원 2019.01.17 2018나54956

-광주지방법원 2019.05.10 2018나5221