logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.04.12 2018나21212
매매대금반환
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. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

(a) the facts under the recognition are apparent in, or obvious to, the record;

1) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit with the Defendant on August 16, 2016. A copy of the complaint was served with the Defendant on September 23, 2016, and the Plaintiff on December 13, 2016, respectively. (2) On May 19, 2017, the court of first instance served the Defendant a notice of the date for pleading on May 19, 2017, but did not serve the Defendant with an unknown address; (3) sent the notice of the date for pleading on May 30, 2017, and sent the notice of the date for pleading on June 28, 2017; (4) sent the notice of the date for pleading to the Defendant on July 6, 2017; and (5) sent the notice to the Defendant on July 26, 2017, and sent the notice to the Defendant on July 26, 2017, but did not serve the notice on July 27, 2017.

3) On September 20, 2017, the court of first instance rendered a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant, but did not serve the original copy on the Defendant due to an unknown address, and on September 28, 2017, served the original copy of the judgment on October 13, 2017, and served the original copy at the time of service on October 13, 2017. (iv) The Defendant submitted the instant written appeal for subsequent completion on January 26, 2018.

B. Article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, the subsequent completion of procedural acts may be made within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist.

The "reasons for which the parties cannot be held responsible" refers to the reasons why the parties could not observe the period even though they fulfilled generally the duty of care to conduct litigation. In case where documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of service by public notice because they are ordinarily in the process of litigation, the documents of lawsuit cannot be served by means of service by public notice shall be served from the service of the copy of the complaint to the cases where the lawsuit is pending by public notice.

arrow