logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.11.28 2014나20217
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. First of all, we examine the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal of this case, ex officio.

Unless there exist special circumstances, if the original copy of a complaint, the original copy of a judgment, etc. was served by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him, and thus the defendant is entitled to file a subsequent appeal within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. Here, "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, rather than to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only

(2) According to the records of this case, the court of first instance, upon receipt of the original copy of the judgment around January 28, 2014, became aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by the court of first instance and was delivered by means of service by public notice, only when it received the original copy of the judgment around January 28, 2014, and the fact that the judgment was delivered by the court of first instance on January 29, 2014. The fact that the court of first instance, upon receipt of the original copy of the judgment around January 28, 2014, filed the instant appeal on January 29, 2014 can be recognized.

According to the above facts, the defendant could not observe the appeal period, which is the peremptory period, because he was unaware of the progress and result of the lawsuit in this case due to a cause not attributable to himself.

arrow