logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.13 2018나77175
공사대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “If a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to any cause not attributable to him/her, he/she may supplement the litigation by neglecting his/her duty of care within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.” In this context, the term “reasons for which the party cannot be held liable” means the reasons why the party could not observe the period, even though he/she performed the duty of care generally required for conducting the litigation.

However, in a case where the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to know the service of the judgment without negligence. If the defendant was not aware of the continuation of the lawsuit from the beginning and became aware of such fact only after the original copy of the judgment was served to the defendant by public notice, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the defendant’s failure to observe the peremptory term of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant

(2) According to the records of this case, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on August 21, 2018, and served the Defendant by means of service by public notice, and the original copy of the judgment on August 30, 2018 is also deemed to have been served on the Defendant on November 13, 2018. The Defendant filed a subsequent appeal of this case around November 13, 2018.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's failure to observe the peremptory period of filing an appeal was due to a cause not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the appeal of this case is lawful by satisfying the requirements for the subsequent completion of the litigation.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff.

arrow