(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.23 2017나17242

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 2018.08.23 2017나17242

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

Reasons

1. On February 26, 2016, the following facts: ① the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order seeking the same money as stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant on February 26, 2016; ② the original copy of the payment order following the above application and the statement of demand procedure guidance attached thereto was served on the Defendant on March 17, 2016; ③ the Defendant filed a written objection against the above payment order with the court on March 23, 2016, and submitted the written objection against the above payment order to the Defendant on March 23, 2016 (the first instance court of this case; hereinafter “the first instance court”); ④ the court of first instance issued the notice to the Defendant on May 16, 2016 on the date of pleading, but sent the original copy to the Defendant on May 25, 2016, which was not known as the addressee, and the Defendant did not deliver the original copy to the Defendant on May 25, 2016.

2. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The legitimacy of the appeal for subsequent completion shall be determined based on whether the time period for appeal was not observed due to a cause not attributable to the appellant. In the case where a copy of the complaint is served lawfully and the documents of the lawsuit are served in the course of the lawsuit by service of dispatch or service by public notice, the defendant was aware of the fact that the lawsuit was filed in a different manner from the service of the copy of the first complaint to the case by public notice, and thus, the defendant is obliged to investigate the progress of the lawsuit.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant did not know that the judgment against the defendant was pronounced.

Even if it is reasonable to deem that he was negligent.

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu224 delivered on March 10, 1987

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.07.11 2017나5303

-수원지방법원 2017.11.16 2016나6306

-부산지방법원 2019.06.07 2018나6072

-대구지방법원 2019.06.13 2018나8888

-인천지방법원 2017.03.17 2016나56625