logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.02.11 2014나709
양수금
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. If the legality, copy, original copy, etc. of a written appeal for subsequent completion are served by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist because he/she was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her.

Here, the term “after the cause has ceased” refers to the time when a party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was rendered by public notice, rather than the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. 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 when the records of the case

(2) On January 10, 2013, the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on January 14, 2014, with the knowledge that the said judgment was served by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). On July 15, 2008, the first instance court rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on July 15, 2008. The original judgment also served on the Defendant by public notice. The Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on January 14, 2014, which was within the period for filing the appeal (the Defendant’s perusal and duplication of the records of this case on January 22, 2014). Thus, the Defendant’s appeal for subsequent completion of the litigation satisfies the requirements for subsequent completion of the litigation.

2. Basic facts

A. The defendant on February 15, 1994 is the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank of Korea and lower than the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank.

arrow