logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.09.11 2014나9646
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint was served by service 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 to correct it within two weeks (30 days if the reason was in a foreign country at the time when the reason ceases to exist) after it ceased to exist because it was impossible 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 delivered by public notice, instead of simply knowing the fact that the said judgment was delivered by public notice. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, it should be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative inspected the records of the case or received the original copy

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

On April 16, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a ruling of the court of first instance on April 16, 2014 after serving a copy of complaint and the notice of date for pleading on the defendant by public notice, and served the original copy of the ruling to the defendant by public notice. The defendant becomes aware of the existence of the judgment of the court of first instance and the fact that the judgment was served by public notice through the receipt of the original copy of the judgment of the court of first instance on June 17, 2014, and the fact that the defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion with the court of first instance on June 18, 2014 is obvious or obvious.

C. Thus, the defendant could not observe the peremptory appeal period, which is the peremptory period, due to reasons not attributable to the defendant. Thus, the appeal of this case filed within two weeks from the date the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive by public notice, is a legitimate appeal satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of litigation.

2...

arrow