(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.27 2015나32902

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 2016.05.27 2015나32902

구상금

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.The following facts of basic facts shall be apparent in the records or shall be apparent to this Court:

On March 26, 2002, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. seeking reimbursement and compensation for delay. On July 3, 2003, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant by deeming that the Defendant was led to confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The court of first instance ordered service by public notice to the Defendant when the original copy of the judgment was impossible to be served, and the above service by public notice became effective on July 22, 2003.

C. On August 17, 2015, the Defendant issued a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance court. On August 26, 2015, the Defendant submitted a certified copy of the judgment to the court.

2. We examine the determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal, and the “reasons for which a party cannot be held liable” under Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the reasons why the party could not comply with the time limit, even though the party had exercised due diligence for conducting the said procedural acts.

Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint were served by public notice from the beginning, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to

Thus, a subsequent appeal may be filed within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist. However, in a case where a document of lawsuit is served by means of service, as a matter of course, because it is ordinarily impossible to serve the document of lawsuit in a normal way, the service of the original copy of the complaint through service by public notice is different from the case where the lawsuit was served by public notice, and thus, the party is obligated to investigate the progress of the lawsuit. Thus, if the party fails to comply with the peremptory period due to a failure to investigate the progress of such lawsuit,

참조조문

-민사소송법 제150조

-민사소송법 제173조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.23 2019나72955

-의정부지방법원 2017.08.09 2017나1883

-부산지방법원 2018.11.14 2018나2728

-춘천지방법원 2019.05.29 2018나53648

-창원지방법원 2015.11.18 2015나3307