logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.04.10 2019나34132
물품대금
Text

1. The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal and counterclaim are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. As to the legitimacy of the defendant's subsequent appeal

A. (1) The Defendant served the original copy of the instant payment order on June 28, 2017 at his/her domicile (Namyang-si C) and submitted the written objection to the court on July 3, 2017 to implement the instant lawsuit on the merits of the instant case.

(2) On January 5, 2018, the first instance court rendered a notice of the date of pleading to the Defendant’s address but was not served as a closed door, and opened the date of pleading on January 31, 2018, after which the notice was sent and served pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act on January 5, 2018, and concluded the pleadings upon the Defendant’s absence on that date. In other words, the first instance court

(3) On March 28, 2018, the first instance court served the original copy of the judgment of the first instance on the Defendant’s domicile, but was not served on two or more occasions as a closed door, and served the Defendant with the original copy through service by public notice, and became effective at the time of March 28, 2018.

(4) As above, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order on March 26, 2019 with respect to the claim for the refund of deposit for lease on deposit held by the Defendant against D as the executive title. The original copy of this decision was served on March 28, 2019 with respect to the garnishee D and served on the Defendant, who is the debtor, by public notice.

(5) On May 1, 2019, the Defendant received an authentic copy of the judgment of the first instance and submitted the instant written appeal on May 7, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Cleared Facts in the record, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1

B. (1) The phrase “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 observe the period despite having fulfilled his/her duty of care to conduct the procedural acts. The first complaint is filed in cases where the document of lawsuit cannot be served by means of ordinary means during the process of the lawsuit and is served by public notice.

arrow