(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나1365 | 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) 대전지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나1365

대여금

Text

1. The appeal of this case shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

This paper examines the legitimacy of appeal filed by the defendant ex officio.

Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “Any reason for which a party is not liable” refers to the reason why the party could not observe the period even though he/she had been generally obliged to perform the procedural acts. In a case where the document of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of litigation and served by public notice, the document of lawsuit cannot be served by means of public notice. As such, even if the party fails to investigate the progress of the lawsuit and fails to abide by the peremptory period, it cannot be said that the party is attributable to any reason for which it is not attributable to the party.

On the other hand, the circumstances where there was no negligence in failing to observe the period of appeal due to the lack of knowledge of the pronouncement and service of the judgment must be asserted and proved by the parties who intend to complete the appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44730, Oct. 11, 2012). The service status of the Defendant of the first instance court, who is remarkable in this Court, is as follows.

A duplicate of the instant complaint: On February 14, 2018, the notice of the date for pleading of the Defendant’s domicile (the receipt of the Defendant himself/herself): The first instance court’s decision on the date for pleading of the instant complaint sent to the Defendant’s domicile: The Defendant was obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit of the first instance court because the service of the Defendant constitutes a case where the Defendant was lawfully served the copy of the complaint at his/her domicile, unlike the case where the duplicate of the complaint was served by public notice, on February 21, 2019 after the Defendant copied and copied the records of the instant case on February 21, 2019 and submitted the Written Complaint on February 22, 2019.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not perform the above obligations.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 10. 11. 선고 2012다44730 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나1181

-서울남부지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나54854

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.23 2019나72955