(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.04.18 2018나6776 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2019.04.18 2018나6776

소유권보존말소등기

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The defendants' lawsuit taking place.

Reasons

1. If a copy of a written complaint of determination as to the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal and the original copy of the judgment were served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant is unable to observe the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her and thus, he/she is entitled to file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after such cause ceases to exist. "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist." "after the cause ceases to exist" refers to the time either the party or legal representative is not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but the fact that the judgment was served by public notice is known by public notice, barring any other special circumstance. Thus, in ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the party

(2) According to the records of this case, the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006). The court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24, 2006) served the network C with a notice of the date of pleading, such as a duplicate of a complaint, by public notice, and the date of pleading, and served with the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da8005, Apr. 23, 2014). The court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Jul. 17, 2018) recognized that the Defendant filed a subsequent appeal with the court of first instance on July 30, 2018.

According to the above facts, it is determined that the deceased C could not observe the peremptory appeal period due to the failure of the deceased C to know the progress and result, etc. of the lawsuit of this case due to the reasons for which the original copy, the original copy, etc. of the complaint of this case was served by public notice.

Therefore, the party to the lawsuit is the party to the lawsuit.

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2021.04.08 2020나73020

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.24 2014나34583

-대구지방법원 2018.11.15 2017나10952

-대구지방법원 2019.04.18 2018나2484

-대구지방법원 2018.09.13 2018나2408